The Supreme Court today has kept its decision on hold in the Renukaswamy murder case, criticizing the Karnataka High Court for how it granted bail to actor Darshan and the other suspects. A panel headed by Justice BR Gavai strongly questioned the High Court asking if proper judicial discretion had been exercised. “We regret to say, but does the High Court issue the same type of orders in all bail requests?” the court inquired. “What concerns us is the High Court’s approach. Consider how it has been handled. Is this the understanding expected from a High Court judge? We could understand if it were a sessions judge. But for a High Court judge to make such an error?”
Describing it as a “wrong use of discretion,” the Supreme Court stated it was looking into whether the High Court had “thought carefully” before granting bail in such a serious matter. “We will not repeat the mistake made by the High Court,” the panel stated. “We are taking this seriously since it involves murder and conspiracy.” The court was considering a petition from the State of Karnataka that challenged the High Court’s December 13, 2024, ruling that allowed bail for actor Darshan and others in the killing of 33-year-old Renukaswamy.
The panel also made sharp comments during the session. Addressing the lawyer representing co-accused Pavitra Gowda, it said, “This all happened because of you. Without your involvement, A2 wouldn’t have been interested. If A2 wasn’t involved, others wouldn’t be either. So, you are the main reason for the issue.” The lawyer contended that she had received inappropriate messages and had no direct phone records linked to the suspects related to the kidnapping or murder. However, the court clarified it was not focusing on “detailed arguments.” “We need to determine if the prosecution’s case is trustworthy,” the panel remarked.
The court also questioned how the High Court disregarded the eyewitness testimony of Kiran and Puneet, who were employed as guards. “Why does the High Court claim they are not credible witnesses?” the bench inquired. “Our final question: how has the High Court handled these two statements when making its decision?” Representing the State, senior advocate Sidharth Luthra mentioned that call records, location data, DNA evidence on clothing and the vehicle, and other materials support the testimonies. “All of this has been confirmed,” he added.
