It is entirely in order and so also in the fitness of things that the Supreme Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled State of Karnataka vs Sri Darshan Etc in Criminal Appeal Nos. 3528 – 3534 OF 2025 (Arising from SLP (Crl.) Nos. 516 – 522 of 2025) and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025 INSC 979 that was pronounced as recently as on August 14, 2025 in the exercise of its criminal appellate jurisdiction cancelled the bail that had been granted by Karnataka High Court in its judgment on December 13, 2024 to Kannada actor Sri Darshan Thoogudeepa and six others in the Renukaswamy murder case while noting explicitly, elegantly, eloquently, eruditely and effectively that, “Whosoever he may be, howsoever high, he is not above the rule of law.” Very rightly so! It must be noted that the Bench of Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice JB Pardiwala and Hon’ble Mr Justice R Mahadevan while allowing the appeal that had been filed by the State of Karnataka challenging the release cancelled the bail granted and so also ordered the immediate surrender of the Kannada actor and directed the State authorities to take him promptly into custody.
Most significantly, we see the Bench led by Hon’ble Mr Justice JB Pardiwala encapsulates in his separate but concurring judgment what constitutes the real cornerstone and heartbeat of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “1. My esteemed brother Justice R. Mahadevan has just pronounced a very erudite judgment. All that I can say in one sentence is that the judgment penned by my esteemed brother is ineffable. The judgment conveys a very strong message that whoever the accused may be, howsoever big or small the accused may be, he or she is not above the law. This judgment contains a very strong message that the justice delivery system at any level should ensure at any cost that the Rule of Law is maintained. No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor de we ask any man’s permission when we ask him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked a favor. The need of the hour is to maintain the rule of law at all times.
2. The day we come to know that the accused persons are provided with some special or five-star treatment within the jail premises, the first step in the process will be to place the jail superintendent under suspension including all other officials involved in such misconduct.
3. The Registry is directed to circulate one copy each of this Judgment to all the High Courts and all the Jail Superintendents across the country through their respective State Governments.”
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice R Mahadevan for a Bench of the Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice JB Pardiwala and himself sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 2 that, “The appellant herein is the State of Karnataka, which has preferred the present appeals challenging the common order dated 13.12.2024 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”) in Criminal Petition No.11096 of 2024 and six connected matters, whereby the respondents/Accused Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 12 and 14, were enlarged on bail in connection with Crime No. 250 of 2024 registered at Kamakshipalya Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 364, 384, 355, 302, 201, 143, 147, 148, 149 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (For short, “IPC”).”
As we see, the Bench then discloses in para 3 that, “Initially, the case was registered against unknown persons under sections 302 and 201 IPC, on the basis of a complaint dated 09.06.2024 lodged by one Keval Ram Dorji, Security Officer of Satva Anugraha Apartment, Sumanahalli, Bengaluru, after the dead body of an unknown male aged approximately 30 to 35 years bearing visible injuries, was discovered by the roadside near the drainage in front of the said Apartment.”
Truth be told, the Bench then points out in para 4 that, “During the course of investigation, Accused Nos. 1, 2, 11, 12, and 14 were arrested on 11.06.2024, while Accused Nos. 6 and 7 were arrested on 14.06.2024. All the arrested accused were remanded to judicial custody. Upon completion of investigation, a total of 17 persons were implicated as accused, and a charge sheet along with two supplementary charge sheets was filed before the jurisdictional court.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 6 that, “In a nutshell, the facts of the case as alleged by the prosecution are as follows:
6.1. A1 was allegedly in a relationship with A2. The deceased, Renukaswamy, a resident of Chitradurga, is said to have sent obscene messages from his Instagram account to the account of A1, since February 2024. Aggrieved by this, A1, A2, A3 (who was working in the house of A1 and A2), and A10 (a friend of A2) were allegedly conspired, through telephonic communication, to trace the deceased, kidnap him, and murder him.
6.2. As part of this conspiracy, A1 reportedly initiated contact with the deceased via Instagram on 03.06.2024, requesting his phone number. In response, the deceased requested her phone number. Acting on her intent to gather information about the deceased and in furtherance of the plan, A1, portraying it as her own number, sent the mobile number 9535289797 (which actually belonged to A3) to the deceased via Instagram.
6.3. Subsequently, on 05.06.2024 at around 9.00 a.m., the deceased called the mobile number of A3, believing it, belong to A1. Through continued WhatsApp communication, he shared personal information including his location (Chitradurga), workplace (Apollo Pharmacy), and photograph.
6.4. A3 allegedly shared this information with A1, A2 and A10, and the conspiracy was expanded to include fan associates of A2. A2, through his associates including A4, instructed them to abduct the deceased, and bring him to them. Thereafter, they planned to assault and kill him. Subsequently, A3 called A4 and instructed him to find the deceased, abduct him, and bring him to A2’s house. A4 conveyed this plan to his friends and A2’s fans from Chitradurga – A6 and A7.
6.5. On 07.06.2024, following instructions from A1, A2, and A10, A3 contacted the deceased via WhatsApp and learned that he was near the court. A3 then informed A4, who, along with A6 and A7, went to the court area to search for the deceased. However, they were unsuccessful in locating him.
6.6. On 08.06.2024, A6 traced the residence of the deceased and called A7 and A8 to the location. They waited, preparing to abduct him. After some time, the deceased left his house on a two- wheeler. He was followed by A4, A6, and A7 in A6’s auto rickshaw (Reg. No. KA 16 AA 3421). At around 10.00 a.m., they abducted him near Balaji Bar, Chitradurga, and took him to an open area near Bharat Petrol Bunk on the highway outskirts. He was then transferred to an Etios Car (Reg No. KA-11-B-7939) owned by A8, and brought to a shed operated by Intact Auto Packers India Pvt. Ltd., RR Nagar, allegedly under A13’s control.
6.7. Thereafter, the accused assembled at Stony Brook restaurant to discuss further steps. Meanwhile, A3 arrived at the shed and began beating the deceased with a stick. A5 also struck him and threw him to the ground, and A4, A6 and A7 assaulted him with branches. A9 struck the deceased on the head and used an electric shock torch (megger) on his chest, back, arms, and legs.
6.8. Around 4.45 p.m., A2 along with A1, A3, A10, A11, and A14, arrived at the shed in two Scorpio vehicles. The deceased was further assaulted by the accused, forming an unlawful assembly. A2 allegedly punched, kicked, and beat the deceased with a tree branch. He was also attacked with a nylon rope and wooden branches. A5 allegedly caused the deceased’s head to hit the bumper of an Ashok Leyland Dost Vehicle, causing head bleeding. A1 slapped him with her chappals and forced him to touch her feet, while inciting the others to kill him.
6.9. A11 allegedly struck him repeatedly with his slipper and nylon rope. A12 made further lethal attacks with his fists. After A1 left, A13 arrived at the shed. A2 told A14 to check the deceased’s mobile phone, which showed that he had sent obscene messages to several women. A2 then allegedly punched him in the stomach, pressed his chest with his shoe, and kicked his left ear and head, causing bleeding.
6.10. Further, A2 instructed A3 to remove the deceased’s pants and then kicked him in his private parts with his shoe. A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A10, A11, A12 and A14, allegedly continued to assault the deceased with hands, wooden sticks, batons, nylon ropes, and other objects, causing severe injuries to his back, arms, legs, and chest. The deceased succumbed to the injuries on the spot. A4 and A5 then moved the body to the security room inside the shed.
6.11. Thereafter, A2 allegedly instructed the others to dispose of the body discreetly, promising to bear the expenses. A2 and A10 then left in A2’s Wrangler Jeep. Later, A10, A11, A12 and A14 returned to the shed and, following A2’s instructions, discussed fabricating a false surrender narrative. A2 is also alleged to have paid Rs.30 lakhs to A14, Rs.10 lakhs to A10, and Rs.5 lakhs to A11 to suppress evidence and avoid implicating himself and A1. A15 and A17 allegedly agreed to surrender in exchange of money.
6.12. In the early hours of 09.06.2024, A10, A11, A12, A13, and A14 with the help of A4, A6, A7, A8, A15 and A17, transported the deceased’s body in a Scorpio vehicle brought by A11 and dumped it near a stormwater drain in front of Satva Anugraha Apartment, Sumanahalli, Bengaluru, with the intent to destroy evidence and mislead the investigation. Thereafter, A4, A15, A16 and A17 surrendered at Kamakshipalya Police Station.”
As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 7 that, “According to the postmortem report, the deceased sustained 39 injuries, of which, 13 were bleeding injuries and 17 ribs were fractured.”
Further, the Bench reveals in para 8 that, “The respondents/accused had earlier approached the LVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-57) seeking bail by filing Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 8580/2024, 8770/2024, 9126/2024, 8812/2024, 8799/2024, 8798/2024 and 9120/2024, which were all dismissed.”
Furthermore, the Bench unravels in para 9 stating that, “Upon rejection of their bail petitions, the respondents/accused approached the High Court by filing Criminal Petition Nos. 11096/2024, 11176/2024, 11180/2024, 11212/2024, 11282/2024, 11735/2024, and 12912/2024 under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (For short, “Cr.P.C”). A2 also sought interim bail on medical grounds, which was granted on 15.10.2024 for six weeks based on a medical report submitted by the prison authorities.”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 10 that, “Ultimately, the High Court allowed the criminal petitions and enlarged the respondents/accused on bail, by the impugned order dated 13.12.2024. Aggrieved by the said order, the State has preferred the present appeals.”
Do also note, the Bench then notes in para 20.2.7. that, “In the present case, the reading of the High Court’s order gives an unmistakable impression that it has pre-judged the outcome of the trial, thereby setting the stage for discharge or acquittal, which, according to this court, is contrary to law.”
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 23.6 that, “In the present case, by treating A2’s stature as a mitigating factor, the High Court committed a manifest perversity in the exercise of its discretion, thereby warranting cancellation of bail. As demonstrated earlier, A2 is not a common undertrial. He enjoys celebrity status, mass following, political clout, and financial muscle. His conduct inside the jail – including recorded instances of VIP treatment, violations of jail rules, and registered FIRs for misuse of facilities – reflects his capacity to defy the system even while in custody. If a person can subvert the prison system, the risk of interference with evidence, threatening or influencing witnesses, and tampering with the course of justice is both real and imminent.”
It also cannot be lightly dismissed that the Bench notes in para 23.7 that, “Moreover, A2’s immediate return to social events, sharing a stage with prosecution witnesses, and continued influence over police witnesses, despite being on bail, establish that his liberty is a threat to the integrity of the proceedings.”
Most rationally, the Bench observes in para 23.8 that, “Notably, celebrities serve as social role models – accountability is greater, not lesser. They, by virtue of their fame and public presence, wield substantial influence on public behaviour and social values. Granting leniency to such persons despite grave charges of conspiracy and murder, sends wrong message to society and undermines public confidence in the justice system.”
Most sagaciously, the Bench points out in para 23.9 that, “Accordingly, A2’s antecedents, influence, jail misconduct, and the seriousness of the charges against him make him unfit for bail, and the order granting bail to him, is based on non-application of mind, perverse, and hence, legally unsustainable.”
Most forthrightly, the Bench propounds in para 24 holding that, “On a cumulative analysis, it is evident that the order of the High Court suffers from serious legal infirmities. The order fails to record any special or cogent reasons for granting bail in a case involving charges under Sections 302, 120B, and 34 IPC. Instead, it reflects a mechanical exercise of discretion, marked by significant omissions of legally relevant facts. Moreover, the High Court undertook an extensive examination of witness statements at the pre-trial stage, highlighting alleged contradictions and delays – issues that are inherently matters for the trial Court to assess through cross-examination. The trial Court alone is the appropriate forum to evaluate the credibility and reliability of witnesses. Granting bail in such a serious case, without adequate consideration of the nature and gravity of the offence, the accused’s role, and the tangible risk of interference with the trial, amounts to a perverse and wholly unwarranted exercise of discretion. The well-founded allegations of witness intimidation, coupled with compelling forensic and circumstantial evidence, further reinforce the necessity for cancellation of bail. Consequently, the liberty granted under the impugned order poses a real and imminent threat to the fair administration of justice and risks derailing the trial process. In light of these circumstances, this Court is satisfied that the present case calls for the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C.”
Most remarkably, the Bench expounds in para 25 mandating that, “In a democracy governed by the rule of law, no individual is exempt from legal accountability by virtue of status or social capital. Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before the law and prohibits arbitrariness. It mandates that all persons – regardless of their popularity, power, or privilege – are equally subject to the law.”
Resultantly, the Bench directs and holds in para 26 that, “In view of the foregoing, all these appeals are allowed. The order dated 13.12.2024 passed by the High Court is set aside. The bail granted to the respondents/accused persons is hereby cancelled. The concerned authorities are directed to take the accused into custody forthwith. Given the gravity of the offence, the trial shall be conducted expeditiously, and a judgment rendered on merits, in accordance with law. It is made clear that the observations made herein are strictly confined to the issue of bail and shall not influence the trial on merits.”
Finally, the Bench then concludes by directing and holding aptly in para 27 that, “Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.”
Sanjeev Sirohi
