‘No man is above the law’: Deep dive into actor Darshan’s bail cancelation by SC

New Delhi

The Supreme Court on Thursday set aside the Karnataka High Court’s December 13, 2024 order that had granted bail to Kannada actor Darshan and six co-accused in the murder of 33-year-old Renukaswamy, directing that all respondents be taken into custody “forthwith” and asking the trial to be conducted expeditiously. 

The Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan held that the High Court misapplied bail principles, treated alleged procedural lapses as determinative, and indulged in a “mini-trial” at the bail stage. 

Justice Mahadevan authored the main judgment cancelling bail under Section 439(2) CrPC, with Justice Pardiwala adding a separate order underscoring that “no man is above the law,” cautioning prison authorities that any “five-star treatment” to the accused would invite immediate suspensions. The Registry has been directed to circulate the judgment to all High Courts and jail superintendents nationwide. 

The SC found “serious infirmities” in the High Court’s approach on multiple counts

• Procedural lapse ≠ automatic bail: The High Court had treated the alleged delay or non-supply of written “grounds of arrest” as a decisive ground to grant bail. The Supreme Court said the Constitution and the Code require that arrestees be informed of arrest grounds, but do not invariably insist on written communication; substantial compliance suffices unless the accused demonstrates prejudice. In this case, the records showed the respondents were represented from the outset and moved for bail quickly—signs they understood the accusations. 
• No “mini-trial” at bail stage: The Bench held the High Court ventured into merits—questioning witness credibility, discounting recoveries from open places, and parsing medical opinions—work reserved for the trial court. Bail orders must rest on a prima facie view, not a detailed evidence appraisal, the Court reiterated. 
• Gravity and societal impact: For offences carrying life imprisonment or death, courts must exercise heightened caution. The Supreme Court said the High Court failed to give due weight to the allegations’ gravity and to credible apprehensions of interference with the administration of justice. 
• Medical bail concerns: The Bench also flagged that bail to Darshan on medical grounds leaned on vague records indicating a possible future surgery, with no immediate emergency or unmanageable condition within the prison system. The Court noted that medical-ground bail must be based on clear, urgent need. 

The Court’s message: Equality before law

Reaffirming Article 14, the judgment stresses that celebrity status, influence, or resources cannot soften bail standards in serious crimes. If stature increases the risk of witness intimidation or evidence tampering, it must weigh against liberty at the bail stage. “Popularity cannot be a shield for impunity,” the ruling warns, citing the accused’s ability—even in custody—to extract special treatment as a red flag for trial fairness. 

Justice Pardiwala’s separate order amplifies the institutional response: if authorities learn the accused are being afforded “special or five-star treatment” in jail, the “first step” must be to suspend the jail superintendent and other officials involved. 

What the case is about

According to the prosecution narrative accepted prima facie for bail purposes, the deceased Renukaswamy, a resident of Chitradurga, had allegedly sent obscene Instagram messages to Accused No. 1 Pavitra Gowda. The police allege a conspiracy involving Pavitra, Darshan (A2), and aides to trace, abduct, and assault the victim. On June 8, 2024, he was allegedly kidnapped near a bar in Chitradurga, moved in vehicles to a shed in RR Nagar, Bengaluru, and assaulted by multiple accused with hands, sticks, nylon ropes, and other objects. The post-mortem recorded 39 injuries, including 13 bleeding wounds and 17 fractured ribs; the body was found near a stormwater drain outside an apartment complex in Sumanahalli early June 9, 2024.

The charge-sheet names 17 accused; Darshan (A2) and Pavitra (A1) face, among others, Sections 302 (murder), 364 (kidnapping), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), 120B (criminal conspiracy) and allied provisions concerning unlawful assembly and rioting. Several co-accused are alleged to be fans or associates who aided the abduction, assault, and disposal of the body. 

What the High Court had done—and why it didn’t hold up

On December 13, 2024, the High Court granted bail to seven respondents, emphasizing issues such as alleged irregularities in arrest documentation, delays in recording witness statements, contradictions in medical opinions, and the argument that recoveries from open places had limited evidentiary value. It also factored in the filing of the charge-sheet and the anticipated length of trial. 

The Supreme Court said this approach misstated the law:

• Arrest-paperwork disputes: Absence of written grounds of arrest is not, by itself, fatal; the touchstone is prejudice. None was shown. 
• Witness credibility & contradictions: These are trial questions; bail courts should not weigh them as if deciding guilt or innocence. 
• Charge-sheet filed ≠ right to bail: Filing a charge-sheet or listing many witnesses cannot trump gravity and risk to process; prolonged trials alone don’t justify bail where interference is likely. 
• Medical grounds: Vague future-care possibilities cannot ground interim liberty in a 302 case without clear, urgent need. 

The order and the road ahead

Allowing the State’s appeals, the Supreme Court cancelled bail, directed authorities to take the accused into custody immediately, and asked the trial court to expedite proceedings while clarifying that today’s observations are confined to bail and will not influence the trial on merits. 

In strong administrative directions, the Court told its Registry to send the judgment to all High Courts and jail superintendents through the respective State Governments—signalling that trial-process integrity and jail-administration neutrality are now under a national lens. 

The larger signal on celebrity cases

Beyond this case, the Bench framed a broader principle: status cannot sanitize risk. Where the record shows credible allegations of witness intimidation, attempts to derail investigations, or capacity to subvert jail rules, courts are duty-bound to protect the process—even at the cost of curtailing personal liberty pending trial. The judgment catalogs precedent to support cancellation where the original bail order is perverse, legally untenable, or blind to material on record, and where genuine apprehension exists that liberty will derail justice. 

Timeline at a glance

• June 8–9, 2024: Alleged abduction from Chitradurga; body found near Sumanahalli, Bengaluru. Case initially registered against unknown persons under Sections 302, 201 IPC. 
• June 11 & 14, 2024: Arrests of several accused, including Darshan (A2). Judicial custody follows; police later filed a charge-sheet and two supplementary charge-sheets, naming 17 accused. 
• Oct 15, 2024: Interim medical bail granted to A2 for six weeks by High Court. 
• Dec 13, 2024: High Court grants regular bail to seven respondents. 
• Aug 14, 2025: Supreme Court cancels bail, orders custody, and directs expeditious trial. 

Charges faced by key respondents (indicative)

• A2 Darshan (actor): 302, 34, 120B, 355, 143, 147, 148, 149, 201, 364 IPC
• A1 Pavitra Gowda: 120B, 355, 143, 147, 148, 149, 201, 364, 302, 34 IPC
• Select co-accused: provisions tied to unlawful assembly, kidnapping, extortion, conspiracy, and causing disappearance of evidence.