“Perverse exercise of judicial discretion”
New Delhi: The Supreme Court (SC) this morning reserved its order on the Karnataka Government’s plea seeking cancellation of bail granted by the Karnataka High Court (HC) to actor Darshan and others accused in Renukaswamy murder case. A Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan reserved the verdict after hearing arguments from both sides and directed lawyers representing some of accused to file written submissions within a week.
The Bench pulled up HC for how bail was granted, questioning whether judicial discretion was applied judiciously. “We are sorry to say, but does HC dictate the same kind of orders in all bail applications?” the Bench asked. “What’s troubling us is approach of HC. Look at how it has been done. Is that understanding of a High Court judge? We could understand if it were a sessions judge. But a HC judge committing such a mistake?”
Calling the order a “perverse exercise of discretion,” the SC said it was examining whether HC had applied its mind before granting bail in such a serious case. “We will not make the same mistake HC did,” the Bench said. “We are a little serious because it is a case of murder and conspiracy.”
Pavithra Gowda root cause
The Court also addressed the lawyer representing co-accused Pavithra Gowda, stating, “All this happened because of you. If you had not been there, A2 (Darshan) would not have been interested. If A2 was not interested, others would not have been interested. So, you are the root cause of the problem.”
The lawyer argued that Pavithra had received objectionable messages and had no direct call record links to the accused involved in the kidnapping or murder. However, the Bench clarified it was not delving into “meticulous arguments,” adding, “We have to see if the prosecution’s case inspires confidence or not.”
The Court also questioned the High Court’s dismissal of eyewitness testimonies from Kiran and Puneeth, both security guards. “Why does the High Court say they are not reliable witnesses?” the Bench asked. “Our last question: how has the High Court dealt with these two statements while exercising discretion?”
Appearing for the State, senior advocate Sidharth Luthra argued that call data records, location pins, DNA on clothes and vehicles, and other evidence corroborate the statements of witnesses. “All of this has been corroborated,” he said.
The Bench further expressed shock over the nature of evidence retrieved from one accused. “You recovered a mobile phone from accused number 10. Why would someone click pictures of the assault?” the Court asked.
When informed that the pictures were forwarded to Darshan and showed the deceased pleading for mercy, the Bench remarked, “Unbelievable. These people are posing for photographs? There is an assault going on, and they’re posing? I’ve understood this cult now that worships actors.”
Luthra added, that all the accused were members of Darshan’s fan club. “People do anything for him just to have access,” he said.
Concluding the hearing, the Bench said, “We will not pronounce a verdict of acquittal or conviction. But we will look into the conduct of the High Court and take a call,” the Judges said.
This post was published on July 24, 2025 6:44 pm