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, pronounced 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.
“Whosoever he may be, howsoever high, he is not above the rule of law.”
The Bench of the Apex Court comprising Hon’ble Mr Justice JB Pardiwala and Hon’ble Mr Justice R Mahadevan allowed the appeal filed by the State of Karnataka, cancelled the bail granted, and ordered the immediate surrender of the Kannada actor while directing State authorities to take him promptly into custody.
Concurring Judgment by Justice JB Pardiwala
Most significantly, Justice JB Pardiwala in his concurring judgment emphasized:
- 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. The justice delivery system must ensure at any cost that the Rule of Law is maintained. “No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man’s permission when we ask him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor.”
- The day we come to know that 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.
- 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.
Case Background
The State of Karnataka challenged the common order dated 13.12.2024 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No.11096 of 2024 and connected matters, where the accused (including Darshan) were granted bail in Crime No. 250 of 2024 (Kamakshipalya Police Station, Bengaluru City). The offences were punishable under Sections 120B, 364, 384, 355, 302, 201, 143, 147, 148, 149, and 34 of IPC.
Key Facts from Investigation
- Case registered initially under Sections 302 and 201 IPC after discovery of a male body on 09.06.2024.
- 17 accused persons were implicated; charge sheet and supplementary charge sheets filed.
- Renukaswamy allegedly sent obscene Instagram messages to A1 (linked with A2, Kannada actor Darshan).
- A conspiracy was hatched to abduct and murder him.
- On 08.06.2024, he was abducted near Chitradurga and taken to a shed where he was brutally assaulted by multiple accused including A2 and A1.
- He succumbed to injuries on the spot. His body was later dumped near an apartment in Bengaluru to mislead the investigation.
Postmortem Findings
The deceased sustained 39 injuries, including 13 bleeding injuries and 17 fractured ribs.
High Court Proceedings
The respondents/accused first approached the Sessions Court for bail but were denied. Later, they approached the High Court, which allowed bail on 13.12.2024. Aggrieved, the State of Karnataka filed the present appeals.
Supreme Court Observations
- The High Court pre-judged the outcome of the trial, contrary to law.
- A2 (Darshan) enjoys celebrity status, political clout, and financial muscle—posing a threat to witnesses and justice delivery.
- Celebrities serve as role models; accountability must be greater, not lesser.
- The High Court order was mechanical, lacked cogent reasoning, and was legally unsustainable.
Final Order
The Supreme Court held that:
“In a democracy governed by the rule of law, no individual is exempt from legal accountability by virtue of status or social capital.”
The appeals were allowed, the High Court’s order was set aside, and bail to the accused was cancelled. The accused were directed to be taken into custody forthwith. The trial was ordered to be conducted expeditiously and on merits.
Author: Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi
A 82, Defence Enclave, Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh
