# State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan Etc

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 979
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-08-14
- **Bench:** J.B. Pardiwala, R. Mahadevan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-karnataka-v-sri-darshan-etc-38690
- **Pages:** 64

## Headnote

Whether the order of the High Court granting bail to the
respondents-accused persons in a case involving serious charges
u/ss.302, 120B, and 34 IPC is perverse and legally unsustainable,
warranting cancellation of bail.
Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.439 - Cancellation of
bail - When warranted - A2, a celebrity along with co-accused,
was charged inter alia u/ss.120B, 364, 302, 201 and 204, IPC for
the murder of a man, who was allegedly kidnapped, tortured,
and beaten to death by the accused for sending objectionable
messages to A1, partner of A2 - Respondents granted bail by
the High Court - Propriety:
Held: Order of the High Court suffers from serious legal infirmities -
No special or cogent reasons are given for granting bail in a
case involving charges u/ss.302, 120B, and 34 IPC reflecting a
mechanical exercise of discretion, marked by significant omissions
of legally relevant and material facts - The allegation is of a brutal
and custodial murder of a young man who was allegedly kidnapped,
tortured, and beaten to death by the accused - This is not a case
of sudden provocation or emotional outburst - Evidence indicates
a pre-meditated and orchestrated crime where the accused also
engaged in systematic destruction of evidence - 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 - By treating A2's stature as a
mitigating factor, the High Court committed a manifest perversity
in the exercise of its discretion, warranting cancellation of bail -
Furthermore, the well-founded allegations of witness intimidation,
* Author
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
195
State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan Etc.
coupled with compelling forensic and circumstantial evidence,
further reinforce the necessity for cancellation of bail - Also, 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 - 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 - Present case
calls for the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction u/s.439(2) -
Impugned order set aside - Bail granted to the respondents is
cancelled. [Paras 20.1.4, 22.1.3- 22.1.5]
Bail - Constitution of India - Art.14 - No preferential treatment
to celebrities in matters of bail:
Held: Constitution of India enshrines equality before law u/Art.14,
and mandates that no individual however wealthy, influential, or
famous can claim exemption from the rigours of law - A celebrity
status does not elevate an accused above the law, nor entitle him
to preferential treatment in matters like grant of bail - Celebrities
are social role models their accountability is greater, not lesser -
By virtue of fame and public presence, they 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 - Popularity cannot be a shield
for impunity - Influence, resources and social status cannot form
a basis for granting bail where there is a genuine risk of prejudice
to the investigation or trial - 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 b

## Text

_Characters 0–39,920 of 122,123. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39920 for what follows._

[2025] 9 S.C.R. 194 : 2025 INSC 979
State of Karnataka
v.
Sri Darshan Etc.
(Criminal Appeal No(s). 3528-3534 of 2025)
14 August 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala* and R. Mahadevan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the order of the High Court granting bail to the
respondents-accused persons in a case involving serious charges
u/ss.302, 120B, and 34 IPC is perverse and legally unsustainable,
warranting cancellation of bail.
Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.439 - Cancellation of
bail - When warranted - A2, a celebrity along with co-accused,
was charged inter alia u/ss.120B, 364, 302, 201 and 204, IPC for
the murder of a man, who was allegedly kidnapped, tortured,
and beaten to death by the accused for sending objectionable
messages to A1, partner of A2 - Respondents granted bail by
the High Court - Propriety:
Held: Order of the High Court suffers from serious legal infirmities -
No special or cogent reasons are given for granting bail in a
case involving charges u/ss.302, 120B, and 34 IPC reflecting a
mechanical exercise of discretion, marked by significant omissions
of legally relevant and material facts - The allegation is of a brutal
and custodial murder of a young man who was allegedly kidnapped,
tortured, and beaten to death by the accused - This is not a case
of sudden provocation or emotional outburst - Evidence indicates
a pre-meditated and orchestrated crime where the accused also
engaged in systematic destruction of evidence - 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 - By treating A2's stature as a
mitigating factor, the High Court committed a manifest perversity
in the exercise of its discretion, warranting cancellation of bail -
Furthermore, the well-founded allegations of witness intimidation,
* Author
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
195
State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan Etc.
coupled with compelling forensic and circumstantial evidence,
further reinforce the necessity for cancellation of bail - Also, 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 - 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 - Present case
calls for the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction u/s.439(2) -
Impugned order set aside - Bail granted to the respondents is
cancelled. [Paras 20.1.4, 22.1.3- 22.1.5]
Bail - Constitution of India - Art.14 - No preferential treatment
to celebrities in matters of bail:
Held: Constitution of India enshrines equality before law u/Art.14,
and mandates that no individual however wealthy, influential, or
famous can claim exemption from the rigours of law - A celebrity
status does not elevate an accused above the law, nor entitle him
to preferential treatment in matters like grant of bail - Celebrities
are social role models their accountability is greater, not lesser -
By virtue of fame and public presence, they 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 - Popularity cannot be a shield
for impunity - Influence, resources and social status cannot form
a basis for granting bail where there is a genuine risk of prejudice
to the investigation or trial - 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 - 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 - In offences punishable
with life imprisonment or death, the bail court must be especially
cautious - However, the High Court's order does not reflect any
196
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
such higher scrutiny or cautious approach, despite the seriousness
of the charge and the wider societal impact of the case - Justice
delivery system. [Paras 22.4.5, 23, 23.5-23.8]
Bail - Courts not to render findings on the merits of the case
at the stage of bail:
Held: Courts are precluded from undertaking a detailed examination
of evidence or rendering findings that touch upon the merits of
the case - Only a prima facie assessment of the material is
warranted - It cannot conduct a mini-trial or record conclusions that
could influence the outcome of the trial - By the impugned order,
High Court proceeded to grant bail to the accused by delving into
the merits of the case and recording findings that fall within the
exclusive domain of the trial Court. [Paras 20.2.1, 20.2.4]
Bail - When may be annulled or cancelled - Annulment of
bail due to legal infirmity in the order; cancellation of bail i.e.
revocation of bail due to post-grant misconduct or supervening
circumstances - Jurisprudence, examined. [Paras 18.1-19]
Bail - Constitution of India - Art.22(1) - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - s.50 - Procedural lapses in furnishing
grounds of arrest, without prejudice, do not ipso facto render
custody illegal or entitle the accused to bail - Plea of the
respondents-accused that the arrest was illegal as the grounds
of arrest were not furnished immediately in writing, violating
Art.22(1) and s.50, Cr.P.C:
Held: The constitutional and statutory framework mandates that
the arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest -
But neither provision prescribes a specific form or insists upon
written communication in every case - Substantial compliance with
these requirements is sufficient, unless demonstrable prejudice
is shown - Mere absence of written grounds does not ipso facto
render the arrest illegal, unless it results in demonstrable prejudice
or denial of a fair opportunity to defend - In the present case,
the arrest memos and remand records clearly reflect that the
respondents were aware of the reasons for their arrest - They
were legally represented from the outset and applied for bail shortly
after arrest, evidencing an immediate and informed understanding
of the accusations - No material on record to establish that any
prejudice was caused due to the alleged procedural lapse - High
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
197
State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan Etc.
Court treated it as a determinative factor while overlooking the
gravity of the charge u/s.302 IPC and the existence of a prima
facie case. [Paras 20.1.3, 20.1.5, 20.1.7]
Bail - Filing of a charge-sheet, does not justify grant of bail:
Held: Mere filing of a charge-sheet does not confer an indefeasible
right to bail - Likewise, the mere prospect of a prolonged trial cannot,
by itself, outweigh the gravity of the offence, the incriminating
material gathered during investigation, or the likelihood of tampering
with witnesses. [Paras 20.4.1, 20.4.6]
Bail - Evidence - Appreciation of, at the stage of bail -
Impermissibility. [Paras 20.3.1-20.3.6]
Bail - On medical grounds, must be based on credible, specific,
and urgent need, not on general or future apprehensions:
Held: Bail was obtained on misrepresentation of medical grounds -
A bare perusal of the medical records and subsequent conduct of
the accused reveals that the medical plea was misleading, vague,
and grossly exaggerated - A2 failed to demonstrate that the jail
hospital was incapable of managing his condition or that adequate
treatment could not be given in judicial custody - High Court
granted bail without recording a definitive finding on the urgency,
seriousness, or inadequacy of treatment in custody resulting in a
perverse and legally unsustainable bail order, liable to be cancelled.
[Paras 22.3.1, 22.3.6]
Bail - Post-bail good conduct of the accused, though relevant
to the question of continuation of bail, however, does not
retrospectively validate an otherwise unsustainable order:
Held: While post-bail good conduct or the period of incarceration
may be relevant considerations at the stage of continuing bail,
they cannot cure the fundamental defects in an order granting bail
which is otherwise perverse, legally untenable, or passed without
due consideration of material factors such as the gravity of the
offence, prima facie involvement, and the likelihood of influencing
witnesses or tampering with evidence - An unsustainable bail
order does not become valid with the mere passage of time or the
subsequent behaviour of the accused - Judicial scrutiny must focus
on whether the discretion to grant bail was exercised judiciously,
and in accordance with established principles, at the time of the
198
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
grant, and not mechanically or on technicalities - The fact that
the accused were in custody for more than 140 days, or exhibited
good conduct post-release, does not ipso facto render the order
of bail sustainable, if it suffers from non-consideration of material
factors at the stage of grant - Order of the High Court granting
bail to the respondents-accused, set aside. [Paras 20.5.1, 20.5.6]
Case Law Cited
Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2024] 6 SCR 666 :
(2024) 8 SCC 254; Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India [2023] 12 SCR
714 : (2024) 7 SCC 576 - held inapplicable.
Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar [2019] 14 SCR 529 : (2020) 2 SCC
118; Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana [1994] Supp. 6 SCR 69 :
(1995) 1 SCC 349; State (Delhi Administration) v. Sanjay Gandhi
[1978] 3 SCR 950 : (1978) 2 SCC 411; Prahlad Singh Bhati v.
NCT of Delhi [2001] 2 SCR 684 : (2001) 4 SCC 280; Puran v.
Rambilas and Another [2001] 3 SCR 432 : (2001) 6 SCC 338;
Dr. Narendra K. Amin v. State of Gujarat and Another [2008] 6
SCR 1149 : 2008 (6) SCALE 415; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis
Chatterjee [2010] 12 SCR 1165 : (2010) 14 SCC 496; Prakash
Kadam and Others v. Ramprasad Viswanath Gupta and Another
[2011] 6 SCR 800 : (2011) 6 SCC 189; Neeru Yadav v. State of
UP [2014] 12 SCR 453 : (2014) 16 SCC 508; Anil Kumar Yadav v.
State (NCT of Delhi) [2017] 11 SCR 195 : (2018) 12 SCC 129;
State of Kerala v. Mahesh [2021] 2 SCR 964 : AIR 2021 SC 2071;
Abdul Basit v. Abdul Kadir Choudhary [2014] 10 SCR 571 : (2014)
10 SCC 754; Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another [2022]
4 SCR 1 : Criminal Appeal No. 861 of 2022 (@ SLP (Crl.) No.
9655 of 2021 dated 20.05.2022; Pinki v. State of Uttar Pradesh
and Another, 2025 INSC 482 : [2025] 5 SCR 522; Vihaan Kumar v.
State of Haryana, 2025 SCC Online SC 456; Kasireddy Upender
Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 INSC 768 : [2025] 7
SCR 105; Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote [1980]
3 SCR 15 : (1980) 2 SCC 559; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh
Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav (2004) 7 SCC 528; Satish Jaggi v. State
of Chhattisgarh [2007] 5 SCR 1049 : (2007) 11 SCC 195; Kanwar
Singh Meena v. State of Rajasthan [2012] 10 SCR 847 : (2012) 12
SCC 180; Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar [2021] 9 SCR 533 : SLP
(Crl.) No(s). 6335 and 7916 of 2021 dated 17.12.2021; Dinesh
M.N. (SP) v. State of Gujarat [2008] 6 SCR 1134 : AIR 2008 SC
2318; State of Orissa v. Mahimananda Mishra, 2018 INSC 827 :
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
199
State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan Etc.
Criminal Appeal No. 1175 of 2018 dated 18.09.2018; Naresh
Kumar Mangla v. Anita Agarwal, AIR 2021 SC 277; Ishwarji Nagaji
Mali v. State of Gujarat and Another [2022] 2 SCR 694 : Criminal
Appeal No. 70 of 2022 dated 18.01.2022; Imran v. Mohammed
Bhava [2022] 2 SCR 1093 : Criminal Appeal No(s). 658 and
659 of 2022 (@ SLP (Crl.) No(s). 27 and 1242 of 2022) dated
22.04.2022; Rahul Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, Criminal Appeal
Nos. 1343-44 of 2023 dated 04.05.2023; State through CBI v.
Amaramani Tripathi [2005] Supp. 3 SCR 454 : (2005) 8 SCC 21;
Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Bahu & Anr. [2012] 7
SCR 584 : (2012) 9 SCC 446; Ajwar v. Waseem [2024] 5 SCR
575 : (2024) 10 SCC 768; Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan
Singh [2002] 2 SCR 526 : (2002) 3 SCC 598; Panchanan Mishra v.
Digambar Mishra [2005] 1 SCR 484 : (2005) 3 SCC 143; Jagan
Kishore v. State of A.P., 2003 Crl. LJ 1919; P v. State of M.P.
[2022] 3 SCR 823 : (2022) 15 SCC 211; State of U.P. v. Narendra
Nath Sinha (2019) 10 SCC 528; Samarendra Nath Bhattacharjee v.
State of West Bengal (2004) 11 SCC 165; State of Maharashtra v.
Dhanendra Shriram Bhurle [2009] 3 SCR 143 : (2009) 11 SCC
541; Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI [2013] 3 SCR 547 : (2013)
7 SCC 439; Rana Kapoor v. Directorate of Enforcement (2022) 8
SCC 1 - relied on.
Sant Shri Asaram Bapu v. State of Rajasthan, 2015 SCC Online
SC 1903; Ram Kishor Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement [2023]
16 SCR 743 : (2024) 7 SCC 599; Ramesh Harijan v. State of U.P.
[2012] 6 SCR 688 : (2012) 5 SCC 777 - referred to.
List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860; Constitution
of India.
List of Keywords
Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Murder;
Cancellation of bail; Celebrity; Celebrity stauts; Actor; Nature and
Gravity of the offence; Seriousness and heinous nature of the
alleged offence; Brutal and custodial murder of a young man;
Bail in serious cases; Post-bail good conduct or the period of
incarceration; Antecedents; Influence; Jail misconduct; Seriousness
of the charges; Likelihood of tampering with evidence; Influencing
witnesses; Bail obtained on misrepresentation of medical grounds;
200
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Non-consideration of material facts by the High Court; Pre-meditated
and orchestrated crime; Premeditated murder and conspiracy;
Bribing co-accused to falsely surrender; Big or small the accused;
Justice delivery system; Rule of Law; Destruction of evidence;
Objectionable messages; Obscene messages.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No(s).
3528-3534 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.12.2024 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Bengaluru in CRLP Nos. 11096, 11176, 11180,
11212, 11282, 11735 and 12912 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv., D. L. Chidananda, P Prasanna Kumar,
Anil C Nishani, Sachin, Mihir Joshi, Manthan Dayanad, Gaurav
Chauhan, Vishwesh R Murnal, Ravindera Kumar Verma, Ishan
Roy Chaudhary, Madhav B. Kashyap, Rahul K. Reddy.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Siddharth Dave, Gaurav Agarwal, K. Diwakar, Sr. Advs., Ms Tanisha
Kaushal, Himanshu Tyagi, Ashwin Vaish, Sunil Kumar S, Ashutosh
Thakur, Ajay R, Tarun Sharma, V Thomas, Ms. Shubi Vijaywargiya,
Uttam Panwar, Aaditya Sharma, Anuroop Chakravarti, Ms. Amrita
Sharma, Chandra Pratap, Parikshit Angadi, Anirudh Sanganeria,
Sunil Kumar S, Lakshmikanth G, H. Chandra Sekhar, Ms. Sanjana
Saddy, Aditya D, Hitesh Gowda, Santosh U, Ms. Mrinal Kanwar,
Abhishek Sandilya, Vaibhav Rajsingh Rathore.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
R. Mahadevan, J.
Leave granted.
2.
The appellant herein is the State of Karnataka, which has preferred
the present appeals challenging the common order dated 13.12.2024
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
201
State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan Etc.
passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru1 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, 18602.
3.
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.
4.
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.
5.
The specific charges framed against the present respondents are
summarised below:
Accused
No
Name
Sections under IPC
2
DARSHAN @ D.BOSS,
ACTOR
302, 34, 120B, 355, 143,
147, 148, 149, 201, 364
11
NAGARAJU R.
149, 201, 302, 34, 120B,
143, 147, 148, 355
7
ANU KUMAR @ ANU,
DRIVER
149, 201, 364, 384, 302,
34, 120B, 143,147, 148
12
LAKSHMAN M. DRIVER
149, 201, 302, 34, 120B,
143, 147, 148
1
Hereinafter referred to as "the High Court"
2
For short, "IPC"
202
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
1
PAVITRA GOWDA
120B, 355, 143, 147, 148,
149, 201, 364, 302, 34
6
JAGADEESH @ JAGGA,
DRIVER
149, 201, 364, 384, 302,
34, 120B, 143, 147, 148
14
PRADOOSH S. RAO @
PRADOOSH
120B, 143, 147, 148, 149,
201, 302, 34
6.
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.
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
203
State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan Etc.
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.
204
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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.
7.
According to the postmortem report, the deceased sustained 39
injuries, of which, 13 were bleeding injuries and 17 ribs were fractured.
8.
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.
9.
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,
19733. A2 also sought interim bail on medical grounds, which was
3
For short, "Cr.P.C"
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
205
State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan Etc.
granted on 15.10.2024 for six weeks based on a medical report
submitted by the prison authorities.
10. 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.
11. Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned senior counsel for the appellant - State,
at the outset, submitted that the impugned order dated 13.12.2024
passed by the High court is ex facie unsustainable as it is contrary
to the material evidence on record and suffers from serious nonapplication of mind to the facts and law involved.
11.1. Insofar as the grant of bail to respondent (A2) on medical
grounds is concerned, the learned senior counsel made the
following submissions:
(i)
The medical opinion dated 24.10.2024 did not disclose
the type of surgery, the prospective date of the surgery,
its nature, or the post-operative care required. Despite
the vagueness and absence of any indication of urgency,
the High Court proceeded to enlarge the first respondent
on medical bail for a period of six weeks, without even
constituting a medical board to assess the genuineness
of the claim. This is contrary to the law laid down in Sant
Shri Asaram Bapu v. State of Rajasthan4 wherein it
was held that expert medical opinion is essential before
grant of medical bail.
(ii)
Subsequently, it was brought to the attention of the High
Court that Respondent No. 1 had not undergone any
surgery or substantial treatment even at the end of the
six-week period. The Court failed to consider this fact and
instead observed that there was no reason to disbelieve
the version of the accused. The contradictory conduct of
the respondent is apparent from the fact that although
he claimed surgery was scheduled on 11.12.2024, it was
not undertaken on the specious ground that his blood
pressure was not stable - a condition that can ordinarily
4
2015 SCC Online SC 1903
206
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
be managed with medication if the surgery were truly
urgent.
(iii) The conduct of Respondent No. 1 clearly indicates the
lack of any immediate medical necessity. The continued
delay and vague justifications point to the falsity of
the medical claim. This respondent approached the
court with unclean hands, having misrepresented facts
regarding the urgency of surgery in order to obtain bail.
However, the High Court failed to take into consideration
the same.
(iv) Such approach of the High Court is contrary to the
settled principle of law that any party who misleads the
court is disentitled to discretionary relief, such as bail.
Therefore, the High Court ought to have rejected his
criminal petition, instead of granting regular bail to the
respondent / A2.
(v)
Moreover, the High Court's observation that the trial
would be prolonged due to the long list of charge-sheet
witnesses is premature and speculative, and cannot by
itself be a ground for granting bail in a case involving
grave offence punishable under Sections 120B, 302,
364, 384, 201 and other serious provisions of the IPC.
(vi) In light of the foregoing submissions, it was urged that
the impugned order of the High Court enlarging the first
respondent on medical grounds, is liable to be set aside.
11.2. Continuing further, the learned senior counsel raised the
following contentions, assailing the common order passed
by the High Court:
(i)
The High Court erred in appreciating key legal provisions
and crucial material evidence on record. It failed to
properly analyse the offence of abduction under Sections
362 and 364 IPC. The act of forcibly confining the
deceased in a vehicle and transporting him against his will
to Bengaluru clearly falls within the ambit of Section 364.
Moreover, the prosecution case demonstrates deceitful
means used to lure the deceased from Chitradurga
to Bengaluru, which squarely attracts the offence
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
207
State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan Etc.
of abduction under Section 362. The learned Judge
overlooked his own prior judgment in Criminal Revision
Petition No. 56 of 2023 wherein it was categorically
held that forcibly keeping a person inside a vehicle by
itself satisfies the ingredients of Section 364 IPC. The
High Court's omission to even consider Section 362 is
a serious legal lapse.
(ii)
The High Court further erred in holding that circumstantial
evidence cannot be evaluated at the stage of considering
bail. Such a proposition is contrary to settled legal
principles laid down by this Court, which mandates that
strong prima facie material, particularly in grave offences
like murder, must be duly weighed even at the bail
stage. In the present case, the brutality of the act stands
out starkly: the postmortem report records 39 external
injuries, 17 fractured ribs, testicular trauma, and electric
burns consistent with torture by shock. The nature and
multiplicity of injuries sustained by the deceased are
clearly indicative of an intent to murder.
(iii) The High Court also summarily disregarded vital forensic
and scientific evidence without any cogent explanation.
DNA of the deceased was found on the shoe worn by
Respondent No. 1(A2) recovered pursuant to a Section
27 disclosure made in the presence of two independent
witnesses. The serological and DNA reports further show
the deceased's blood on various incriminating items,
including a nylon rope, lathi, the boot mat of the while
Scorpio vehicle (owned by A11) and the bumper of an
Ashok Leyland vehicle parked at the scene. Blood was
also found on clothing of multiple accused persons.
The mud/soil found on some of the accused's shoes
matched the soil collected from the crime scene. These
are objective and scientific indicators that corroborate
the prosecution version and cannot be brushed aside
at this preliminary stage.
(iv) The digital and electronic evidence on record further
corroborates the prosecution case. CCTV footage from
toll booths and other locations establishes the movement
208
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
of the accused and the vehicles used for transporting
the deceased. A photograph retrieved from the phone of
CW.91, a key eyewitness, shows A2 and A6 posing near
the deceased post-assault. Call Data Records (CDRs),
WhatsApp messages, and mobile location tracking clearly
establish planning, the act of abduction, the conduct
during the assault, and post-offence cover-up efforts.
These digital records are not isolated data points but are
interlocking pieces of a broader evidentiary framework
pointing toward a criminal conspiracy.
(v)
The prosecution relies heavily on the testimonies of
two key eyewitnesses - CW. 76 (Kiran) and CW. 91
(Puneet) - who were present at the scene of offence
and whose presence is independently corroborated.
Both were employed at the crime location, a private
parking shed, and were well acquainted with the accused
persons. Their accounts, recorded under Sections 161
and 164 Cr.P.C, clearly point out the overt acts of assault,
torture, and subsequent disposal of the body. Delay in
recording their statements has been credibly explained
through verified travel records and other documents.
These testimonies are consistent and cogent, yet the
High Court has unjustifiably discarded them.
(vi) In Addition to these two direct witnesses, other shed
workers - CW.69, CW.77, CW.78 and CW.79 - have
confirmed the entry and exit of the accused and their
vehicles. Given that these workers operated in shifts
across the 5 - 6' acre crime scene, their presence
at different locations and their ability to testify only to
movement and not the assault is understandable. The
High Court erred in discounting their statements on this
ground.
(vii) The prosecution also strongly contests the High Court's
findings regarding non-compliance with Article 22(1) of
the Constitution and Section 50 Cr.P.C. The respondents
were informed of the grounds of arrest orally at the
time of arrest and served written grounds immediately
thereafter. This process is in line with this Court's rulings
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
209
State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan Etc.
in Ram Kishor Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement5
and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi)6. The
arrest memos, checklists, and intimation documents were
duly submitted before the Magistrate and counter-signed
by persons acquainted with the accused. The requirement
under Section 50A Cr.P.C to satisfy the Magistrate about
arrest intimation was duly fulfilled. The High Court's
insistence that the actual grounds of arrest must be filed
in court, finds no support in law.
(viii) In fact, in Criminal Petition No. 9537/2024, the same
learned Judge had held that if grounds of arrest are orally
conveyed at the time of arrest and written communication
is furnished promptly thereafter, the requirement
under Article 22(1) stands satisfied. A diametrically
opposite view in the present case amounts to judicial
inconsistency. Furthermore, the High Court's finding
that the grounds served on all accused were identical
is untenable. At the time of arrest, the investigation
was ongoing and roles were emerging. The grounds of
arrest served on the accused were based on material
then available and included the basic facts necessary
to justify arrest.
(ix) The continued liberty of the accused, particularly
Respondent No. 1 (A2) poses a serious threat to the
fairness of the trial. A2 is a public figure with a substantial
fan base and influence across the State. After being
granted medical bail, he was seen socializing with CW.80
(a prosecution witness) and attending public events,
despite claiming serious back pain before the court.
Such conduct reflects disregard for judicial process and
strengthens the apprehension of witness tampering and
coercion.
(x)
This is not a case of sudden provocation or a spontaneous
act of violence. It is a premediated crime motivated by a
perceived grievance - that the deceased had allegedly
5
(2024) 7 SCC 599
6
(2024) 8 SCC 254
210
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
sent obscene messages to A1. A1 and A2 then conspired
to eliminate the deceased, using a wide network of
associates (A3 to A17). The deceased was abducted
under false pretenses, forcibly transported to Bengaluru,
confined at a shed, and subjected to brutal torture before
being killed. The recovery of torture devices (shock torch,
lathi, nylon rope) and photographic evidence of the crime
stored in phones seized from the accused underscore
the cold-blooded nature of the crime.
(xi) The High Court has also erred in granting bail on the
ground that the trial may be delayed due to the listing
of 262 witnesses (as per the charge sheet and first
supplementary charge sheet). The case had just been
committed to the Sessions Court and had not even
reached the stage of charge framing. The High court's
assumption of delay at this early stage is speculative and
unwarranted. Moreover, in comparable murder cases, the
same learned Judge has denied bail when presented
with similar prima facie material. This deviation, without
sufficient explanation, reveals a lack of consistency in
judicial approach.
(xii) In conclusion, the cumulative weight of the evidence -
eyewitness testimony, forensic reports, electronic data,
and confessions under Section 27 - establishes a strong
prima facie case against the respondents. The grant of
bail in a heinous offence such as murder, particularly
when supported by such overwhelming material,
undermines the sanctity of judicial process and erodes
public confidence in the administration of justice.
(xiii) Therefore, the impugned order granting bail to the
respondents, be set aside and the appeals be allowed.
12. On behalf of the respondents / accused, oral and written submissions
were made by their respective learned counsel, and the consolidated
submissions are as follows:
(i)
The FIR was initially registered against unknown persons,
and during the investigation, Accused Nos. 1, 2, 11, 12 and
14 were arrested on 11.06.2024, while A6 and A7 were
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
211
State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan Etc.
arrested on 14.06.2024. Although, the respondents were
produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest,
they were neither informed in writing of the grounds of
arrest nor provided timely access to legal counsel. No copy
of the remand application was furnished, thereby violating
procedural safeguards under the Criminal Procedure Code,
1973, and their fundamental rights under Article 22(1) of the
Constitution. Additionally, the arrest and detention process
lacked proper documentation such as the arrest memo,
intimation of rights, and a statutory checklist. Even the
checklist filed by the prosecution is identical and cyclostyled
for all accused. The attesting witness's statement (CW. 76)
concerning the arrest was recorded later and is silent on the
service of written grounds of arrest. Mere oral intimation is
insufficient. General averments in the remand application
cannot substitute valid reasons for arrest.
(ii)
The prosecution's evidence is fraught with material
inconsistencies, procedural irregularities, and lacks probative
value sufficient to sustain allegations. These issues will be
demonstrated during trial through effective cross-examination
of prosecution witnesses and forensic experts.
(iii)
The spontaneity and promptness of witness statements are
critical to credibility. However, one primary eyewitness, CW.
91, gave his Section 161 Cr.P.C statement, 12 days after
the incident (incident on 08.06.2024; statement recorded
on 20.06.2024). Such inordinate and unexplained delay
undermines reliability and suggests afterthought. Other
eyewitness statement is similarly plagued by contradictions
and delays.
(iv)
The prosecution's claim of bloodstains on clothes recovered
from A2 is contradicted by contemporaneous evidence. The
clothes were recovered three days after the incident, during
which they were washed and found hanging on a terrace. The
panchnama at seizure time makes no mention of bloodstains,
rendering the forensic claim suspect. Similar inconsistencies
extend to recoveries from other co-accused.
(v)
CW. 76 and CW. 91's statements, recorded belatedly raise
serious doubts about their reliability. No explanation is provided
212
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
for their initial silence. This aligns with this Court's view in
Ramesh Harijan v. State of U.P.7that unexplained delay
affects probative value. The High Court's cautious approach
to such evidence is justified.
(vi)
Statements of CW. 7 and CW. 8 (parents of the deceased)
and CW. 122 contradict the prosecutions' abduction claim,
indicating the deceased voluntarily accompanied co-accused
to a location and even paid the bill himself. The reliance on
CCTV footage and photographs to allege abduction remains
a matter for trial.
(vii)
There is no direct evidence linking the accused to weapons
allegedly used for assault. Statements implicating A2 were
recorded only after delay, despite witnesses being available
earlier. Further, statements of CW. 69, CW. 77, CW. 78,
and CW. 79 do not implicate A2 in the homicidal death of
Renukaswamy.
(viii) The autopsy report dated 11.06.2024 does not specify the
probable time of death of the deceased. The prosecution's
reliance on a sketch prepared by CW. 195 (Head Constable
Surendera) is disputed, as it was a Google map printout with
pasted photographs.
(ix)
The phone call records between A2 and other accused relate
to personal staff and friends; no adverse inference can be
drawn. CCTV footage only shows A2's entry and exit from
his residence and hotel room during a scheduled film shoot.
(x)
The prosecution does not allege that Respondent No. 5 (A1)
was involved in any manner in the abduction or assault of
the deceased, nor is there any telephone link between this
respondent and the persons alleged to have committed the
offences of kidnapping or murder. The only act attributed
to this accused is that she slapped the deceased with a
chappal.