Actor Ramya hails SC's decision to cancel Darshan's bail in Renukaswamy murder case, says ‘all are equal before law'
ALSO READ | Actor-politician Divya Spandana on Darshan's arrest: 'You don't go around killing people'
Taking to Instagram, Ramya stated, 'The SC judgment today on setting aside bail to Darshan and others in the Renukaswamy murder case sends out a strong message — ALL ARE EQUAL BEFORE LAW.'
She also encouraged the public to continue believing in the legal system. 'To the rest of us, I'd like to say - follow due process, keep faith in the justice system - It's long and hard, but there is light at the end of the tunnel. Do not take law into your own hands, justice will be served. Most importantly, stay true to your conscience,' she added.
ALSO READ | Actors Darshan, Pavithra back in jail: SC warns against special treatment, 'however big a person may be'
Earlier, the Supreme Court bench comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan annulled the Karnataka High Court's bail order, citing serious procedural flaws. The apex court ordered immediate arrest of all accused, including Darshan and Gowda and instructed the lower court to fast-track the trial.
Darshan and Pavithra Gowda are among several individuals charged with the brutal killing of 33-year-old Renukaswamy, who allegedly sent offensive messages to Gowda. Police reports indicate that the victim was abducted, detained in a shed in Bengaluru for three days in June 2024, subjected to torture, and later found dead in a nearby drain.
ALSO READ | 'Our faith in the judiciary…': Renukaswamy's father lauds SC's decision to revoke actor Darshan's bail - Report
Following the Supreme Court's directive, authorities swiftly re-arrested both Darshan and Gowda.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
30 minutes ago
- Time of India
Delhi HC asks Centre to respond if X Corp ought to be part of Sahyog portal
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has asked the Centre to respond to its query on whether social media platform X Corp . ought to be unexceptionally part of the Sahyog portal in cases involving human trafficking , child trafficking and national security-related issues. The court has asked the Centre to file its reply by September 10, addressing specifically this issue as well as a plea moved by X Corp., formerly known as Twitter, seeking discharge from the proceedings of a case and placing its opposition to come on board the Sahyog portal, which is managed by the home ministry's Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (IC4). "Let the Union of India file its reply to the present application, addressing the specific issue i.e. as to whether in cases involving human trafficking, child trafficking and serious matters such as drug trafficking and national security-related issues are concerned, the applicant X Corp. ought to be unexceptionally part of the SAHYOG portal. Let the reply be filed by September 10, 2025," a bench of Justices Prathiba M Singh and Amit Sharma has said. The high court, in its August 12 order, took note of the challenge by X Corp. to the entire concept of the Sahyog portal and that its coming on board the portal is pending before the Karnataka High Court. However, the judgment is stated to be reserved. Sahyog, the government says, was developed to automate the process of sending notices to intermediaries by the appropriate government or its agency under the IT Act to facilitate the removal or disabling of access to any information, data or communication link being used to commit an unlawful act. The portal aims to bring together all authorised agencies and intermediaries on one platform to ensure immediate action against unlawful online information. The court was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by a woman seeking directions to authorities to produce her 19-year-old son who has been missing since January 10, 2024. While dealing with several habeas corpus petitions, the court noticed that there was a "lag" between the seeking of information by police and the receipt of the same from various social media platforms. The court made it clear that the application of X Corp. arises in a habeas corpus petition, where there is a missing child, and the cooperation to be tendered by intermediaries and their participation in the SAHYOG portal is being considered from that perspective. X Corp. has sought its discharge from the present proceedings, citing its cooperation, and said its petition against the Sahyog portal is pending in the Karnataka High Court, which has reserved the judgment. The court observed that there was no impediment in hearing X Corp. as the Karnataka High Court has not passed any such order. The Centre's counsel had said while X Corp. moved the Karnataka High Court, 64 intermediaries had come aboard the Sahyog portal and the home ministry's IC4 had sent requests to others to follow suit. The counsel had urged the court to direct the remaining intermediaries to join the portal expeditiously. In a status report filed in the matter, the Centre had also said that more than 1,100 entities, including internet service providers, Facebook, WhatsApp and Microsoft, have joined the "API integrated system" for instantaneously sharing data. It had added that the system was at the testing and production stage and all states and Union territories had appointed nodal officers for the Sahyog portal. The report had said 33 "Virtual Digital Asset Service Providers" had also joined the portal.
The Print
43 minutes ago
- The Print
Are we dating the same guy? Whisper networks trend aims to expose creeps
I am not sure if the app is the revolution of the century or just overkill. The same sting operations are happening in every corner of the internet. Reddit, X, and Instagram have been facilitating similar services for a while now. The college senior who started sending public Snaps of her boyfriend in 2018 was onto the same thing. 'Let other people claim him before you commit to him,' she said. Social media accounts such as @SheRatesDogs (where women posted manipulative, creepy, funny, or downright awful messages they received from men) became so popular that the admin started selling t-shirts with her username. Hell, even Google Docs sheets have been passed around with the title 'Guys to avoid'. Women even lather themselves in glitter in case their date is secretly married. He takes the glitter home to his wife—who, by the way, is watching the same reels. The anti-privacy era of digital dating has made life difficult for two-timers and serial killers alike. First came the #AreWeDatingTheSameGuy Facebook groups, and now Americans have the Tea app—where women swap date details to check if their matches are married, a sex offender, or just the kind of guy who gifts every woman the same perfume. It saves lives and sometimes has the entertainment capacity of a horror movie. Also read: Is getting back with an ex a bad idea? It's Delusion Central Discarded treasure? Due diligence is mandatory since we're all pulling dates out of the same apps. The primary step in my circles is to check the mutuals list in the match's Instagram following. The first siren goes off if there are a lot of women on that list. Then start the girl-to-girl interviews—how do you know this guy? The sisterhood hardly disappoints. Take influencer Sakshi Shivdasani, for example. When a stranger slid into her DMs asking about a man, she came through by confirming whether he was still active on Hinge. My coworker came through the same way when she told me that our mutual Hinge match has a flat personality. Don't get me wrong, this compulsive vetting is definitely controversial. It's one thing to expose a rapist, but to out a 20-something who still sleeps with soft toys? Funny but unnecessary. But that's how far we are going to ensure physical and emotional safety. But at this rate, we might as well start walking around with a Post-it on our foreheads, putting out in writing who we are dating, and what all is wrong with him. Or maybe we can build an app or something that pings if you and your flatmate have matched with the same guy. Because that's been happening a lot. Two mates in a Lajpat Nagar PG found themselves talking about the same movie, the same restaurant and the same songs when they unknowingly started dating the same neighbour. But before they even got to confronting him, they had to address the elephant in the room—the bold, Comic Sans 'Family' tattoo on his left arm. Both girls were instantly icked out. Predictably, the double–dater was left in the wilderness, neither of the roommates too keen to keep him. A similar operation was famously run at the Thapar Institute of Engineering & Technology campus in Patiala. The allegations against the perpetrator were far more serious. A WhatsApp group created by two second-year students, titled Did he date you?, soon grew to 12 members—half based in Patiala, the rest their Facebook-linked friends scattered across different cities. Apparently, the guy was manipulating all these women into sharing their private pictures and feigning exclusivity. He was also borrowing money from all of them. On the day of judgement, he was exposed in a college-wide broadcast WhatsApp message. And this is how you make the world safer for other women. The fact of the matter is that women talk—especially about their dates. Their friends know the scene-to-scene breakdown of the first date, the cheesy tattoo on his arm, and the length of his bookshelf. His pictures are passed around like police sketches. Call it a survival instinct if you must—and it really is that once you strip away the petty badmouthing part. One woman's trash may be another woman's treasure. But is it? Really? Views are personal. (Edited by Theres Sudeep)
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
Gunmen fire several rounds at YouTuber Elvish Yadav's Gurugram home
Gurugram: Unidentified attackers opened fire outside the residence of controversial YouTuber Elvish Yadav in Haryana's Gurugram early Sunday morning, triggering panic in the upscale locality. Police said the firing took place between 5.30 and 6 a.m. when three bike-borne assailants sprayed more than two dozen bullets at Yadav's house before fleeing. The bullets struck the ground and the first floors of the residence. Bigg Boss OTT winner Yadav, who lives on the second and third floors, was not present during the attack. His caretaker and some family members were inside at the time, but no one was injured. "Today, on 17.08.2025, at around 5:30/6:00 a.m., some unknown persons fired at a house under the jurisdiction of Police Station Sector-56, Gurugram. No person has been shot in this incident," Gurugram Police said in a statement. Additionally, the attackers are absconding. Police teams rushed to the spot, gathered forensic evidence, and began scanning CCTV footage from nearby areas. Officials said legal action is being initiated, and further investigation will proceed once Yadav's family registers a formal complaint. Relatives of the YouTuber said he had not received any threats before the incident. Yadav is currently outside Haryana for work. According to the investigation so far, the attack was carried out by three individuals riding a motorcycle. Multiple police teams are stationed at the site to track down the assailants. Yadav has been surrounded by controversies since he was arrested over allegations of using snake venom as a recreational drug at parties he allegedly organised. The YouTuber, who was later released on bail, was named along with other accused in an FIR lodged at Sector 49 police station in Noida on November 3, 2023, following a complaint by animal rights NGO People for Animals (PFA). Based on the FIR filed by the Gautam Buddha Nagar Police, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) also launched a parallel probe against the influencer under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and questioned him on various matters, including details of rave parties, the supply of snake venom, and its sources. Earlier in the month, the Supreme Court stayed the trial court proceedings against the YouTuber. As per the computerised case status reflected on the apex court's website, Elvish's SLP is tentatively listed for hearing on September 23. Senior advocate Mukta Gupta, instructed by advocates Raman Yadav and Aman Jha, represented Elvish before the Supreme Court.
