The Supreme Court, on July 17, 2025, expressed serious reservations about the manner in which the Karnataka High Court granted bail to Kannada actor Darshan in the high-profile Renukaswamy murder case.
A two-judge bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan was hearing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the State of Karnataka challenging the High Court’s December 13, 2024 order that granted bail to Darshan, who is accused in the gruesome murder of his 33-year-old fan, Renukaswamy.
Read also: Kapil Sibal Urges Supreme Court to Stop 'Udaipur Files', Calls It Vilification of Entire Community
According to police reports, Darshan allegedly abducted Renukaswamy from Chitradurga and tortured him for three days in a shed in Bengaluru. The victim later died from the abuse, and his body was reportedly disposed of in a drain.
“To be very honest with you, we are not convinced with the manner in which the High Court has exercised discretion,”
— Justice JB Pardiwala to Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal
During the hearing, Justice Pardiwala directly addressed Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for Darshan, and questioned the reasoning behind the bail order. The bench made it clear that they are open to hearing the arguments, but found the High Court’s approach questionable.
Read also: High Court: Jail Imprisonment Can’t Be Ground to Reject Appeal Against Property Freezing Under
When Sibal asked which part of the High Court’s order the bench found concerning, Justice Pardiwala responded:
“That part of the order, Mr Sibal, where the High Court was really panting how to release them on bail.”
Sibal, in response, argued that apart from the High Court's decision, the court should look into statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC and key witness testimonies, including those of the police.
“You need to convince us that there is no good reason for this court to interfere.”— Justice Pardiwala
The bench has scheduled the matter for further hearing next Tuesday.
Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, representing the State of Karnataka, was asked by the bench to clarify whether the respondent had any criminal antecedents. Luthra said that the post-bail conduct should also be considered and pointed out that Darshan was seen sharing a stage with one of the key witnesses, calling it “a little disturbing.”
Read also: Isha Foundation Moves Supreme Court to Restrain Nakkheeran from Publishing Alleged Defamatory Content
Sibal countered by stating that the individual was not a key witness, to which Luthra firmly responded:
“If he was not a key witness, then what was the definition of a key witness?”
The case continues to draw significant public and legal attention due to its grave nature and the high-profile individuals involved.
Case Title: The State of Karnataka vs Sri Darshan Etc. Etc.
SLP (Crl) No. 516-522/2025