Actor Darshan to be arrested again as Supreme Court cancels bail in Renukaswamy murder case
A Supreme Court bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan pronounced the order on an appeal filed by the Karnataka government against the High Court order.
"The order is set aside, and the bail granted to the accused is set aside," the Supreme Court said.
Police will now arrest the accused, Hindustan Times reported.
The Supreme Court held that the Karnataka High Court order that granted bail to the accused suffers from 'perversity' and it went into witness' statement which is the prerogative of the trial court, Bar and Bench reported.
It further noted that 'granting bail in such a serious case without adequately considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the accused role, the tangible interference with the trial are amongs perserve and unwarranted exercise discretion.'
"The high court order reflects mechanical exercise of power... The grant of bail will impact the trial, and the witnesses can be influenced," the Supreme Court ruled.
The court said, "Justice Mahadevan has pronounced a very erudite judgment. It is ineffable. It conveys a message that however big the accused may be, he or she is not above the law."
"It contains a strong message that the justice delivery system at any level should ensure at any cost that rule of law is maintained. No man is above law or below it. Nor do we ask anyone's permission when we obey it," the court said.
"The need of the hour is to maintain rule of law at all times," Justice Pardiwala added," the bench added.
The Supreme Court warned against providing special treatment to the accused in jail.
"The day we come to know that the accused persons are being provided 5-star treatment, the first step would be to place the superintendent into suspension along with all other officials," the bench cautioned.
Darshan Thoogudeepa is accused of torturing and murdering Renukaswamy, a fan of actor Pavithra Gowda.
The dead body of 33-year-old auto-driver Renukaswamy was found on June 9. It was alleged that he died owing to injuries sustained in an attack carried out on Darshan's instructions.
Darshan had allegedly abducted the deceased from Chitradurga and had him tortured for three days in a shed in Bengaluru in June 2024.
Darshan allegedly called upon his fans to accost and kidnap Renukaswamy for making derogatory comments against Pavithra Gowda on social media.
Darshan was arrested on June 11 last year.
On October 30 last year, the Karnataka High Court granted him interim bail for six weeks on medical grounds.
Subsequently, it granted regular bail to Darshan, Pavithra and five other accused on December 13, 2024.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
KSRTC conductor with 65 offences terminated
BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court confirmed the imposition of a penalty of dismissing Basha P (55) from service by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC), considering his history of being found guilty for repetitive misconduct. He hails from Peresandra village in Chikkaballapur taluk. What is interesting is that he was caught in eight cases of not issuing tickets to passengers, when the inquiry into the case of not issuing tickets of Rs 142 was pending. In all, he was punished in 65 cases. The division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi said, 'Initially, it appears that the punishment of dismissal on account of non-issue of tickets of an aggregate value of Rs 142 is harsh, but it is also necessary to remember the past conduct of Basha. The show cause notice dated July 3, 2019, issued to him had listed out 57 instances of misconduct. One of the cases was pending, but penalties had been imposed on the appellant in the other 56 cases of misconduct. Most of the said cases were of non-issuance of tickets,' the court observed.
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Markers and proofs of citizenship
NEW DELHI: The genesis of the present controversy over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter lists in poll-bound Bihar lies in the Election Commission of India (ECI) changing a parameter for the enrollment exercise for the first time. For the longest time, any one could get into the poll rolls through self-declaration of citizenship. Deletion would kick in only if someone challenged the bona fides and produced material to establish it. The poll body has now shifted the burden of proof of citizenship to the applicant. Rebutting challenges, the ECI in its counter affidavit in the Supreme Court said, it is "vested with the power to scrutinize whether a proposed elector fulfils the criteria for being registered as a voter in the electoral roll, which includes, inter alia, an assessment of citizenship as per Article 326 of the COI. Such scrutiny is constitutionally mandated and crystallized by virtue of RP Act 1950. This power flows directly from the provisions of Article 324 (superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls) read with 326 (adult suffrage), and sections 16 (disqualification if a person is not a citizen) and 19 (ordinarily a resident in a constituency entitled to be registered in the electoral roll) of the RP Act 1950.' Supreme Court judge Surya Kant concurred. 'Law regarding conferment of citizenship or taking away of citizenship will have to be enacted by the Parliament. No debate is required on that. But once that law has been made and in terms of that if somebody has been acknowledged or recognised as citizen, inclusion of that person in the voters list and a person who has not been recognised as citizen and who is not a citizen, exclusion of that person, that has to be undertaken by the commission only,' he said. He agreed that self-declaration of citizenship may lead to legal complications, adding the ECI can verify their authenticity.
New Indian Express
2 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Timelines for Prez, Guvs will lead to constitutional disorder, Centre tells SC
NEW DELHI: The Centre on Saturday cautioned the Supreme Court that fixing timelines on governors and the president to act on bills passed by a state Assembly would lead to a 'constitutional disorder'. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta has said this in a written submissions filed in the Presidential Reference raising constitutional issues on whether timelines could be imposed for dealing with bills passed by a state Assembly. 'The alleged failure, inaction or error of one organ does not and cannot authorise another organ to assume powers that the Constitution has not vested in it. If any organ is permitted to arrogate to itself the functions of another on a plea of public interest or institutional dissatisfaction or even on the justification derived from the Constitution ideals, the consequence would be a constitutional disorder not envisaged by its framers,' he said. A note filed by Solicitor Mehta has argued that the apex court imposing fixed timelines would dissolve the delicate equilibrium that the Constitution has established and negate the rule of law. 'The perceived lapses, if any, are to be addressed through constitutionally-sanctioned mechanisms, such as electoral accountability, legislative oversight, executive responsibility, reference procedures or consultative process amongst democratic organs etc. Thus, Article 142 does not empower the court to create a concept of 'deemed assent', turning the constitutional and legislative process on its head,' it reads. The positions of the governor and president are 'politically plenary' and represent 'high ideals of democratic governance'. Any perceived lapses, the note says, must be addressed through political and constitutional mechanisms, and not necessarily through 'judicial' interventions. Mehta has contended that Articles 200 and 201, which deal with the governors' and president's alternatives after receiving a state bill, deliberately contain no timelines. 'When the Constitution seeks to impose time limits for taking certain decisions, it specifically mentions such time limits. Where it has consciously kept the exercise of powers flexible, it does not impose any fixed time limit,' Mehta has said.
