Supreme Court raps Karnataka High Court for bail to actor Darshan in murder case
The victim, described as a fan of actor and Darshan's associate Pavithra Gowda, had reportedly sent obscene messages to her. According to police, Darshan allegedly abducted Renukaswamy from Chitradurga and subjected him to brutal torture over three days in a shed in Bengaluru in June 2024. The man later died, and his body was found dumped in a drain. Darshan, along with Pavithra Gowda, Anu Kumar, Lakshman M, V Vinay, Jagadeesh, Pradoosh S Rao, and Nagaraju R, had approached the High Court after a sessions court rejected their bail pleas.At the outset of the hearing, Justice Pardiwala addressed Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for Darshan. 'What do you have to say Mr Sibal? To be very honest with you, we are not convinced with the manner in which the High Court has exercised discretion. Very honestly, we will say this. We will hear you because your clients are on bail, they have come for cancellation of bail and you must have seen the manner in which the High Court had dictated the order,' he remarked.Responding to the bench, Sibal argued that irrespective of the High Court's order, the Supreme Court could examine the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, along with testimonies from two or three key witnesses, including those from the police.Justice Pardiwala, while listing the matter for hearing next Tuesday, said, 'You need to convince us that there is no good reason for this court to interfere.' When Sibal sought clarification on which part of the High Court's judgment the bench found problematic, Justice Pardiwala pointed to a specific portion. 'That part of the order, Mr Sibal, where the High Court was really panting how to release them on bail,' he said.advertisementThe bench also questioned Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, representing the State of Karnataka, on whether the accused had any criminal antecedents. The court asked that such details, if any, be presented at the next hearing. Luthra, in his submission, said the matter involved not just antecedents but also conduct after being granted bail. 'He is sitting on the stage with one of our key witnesses in a public function. It is a little disturbing,' he said.To this, Sibal responded that the person referred to was not a key witness. Luthra retorted, 'If he was not a key witness, then what was the definition of key witness?' The case is scheduled to be heard again next week.- Ends
IN THIS STORY#Karnataka
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
18 minutes ago
- Hans India
High Court Judge Seeks Anonymous Status In Supreme Court Challenge Against Removal Recommendation
In an unprecedented judicial development, Justice Yashwant Varma has filed a petition in the Supreme Court under concealed identity, challenging the conclusions of an investigative committee that advised his dismissal from the judiciary. The case appears on Monday's Supreme Court docket as "XXX vs The Union of India," with the placeholder representing Justice Varma's concealed identity. The anonymity request represents an unusual legal strategy, as such identity protection is typically reserved for sexual assault survivors, rape victims, and cases involving minors or juveniles. Justice Varma has specifically requested the apex court's permission to maintain confidentiality regarding his identity throughout the proceedings. The controversy stems from a significant cash discovery at Justice Varma's official Delhi residence following a fire incident on March 14. The judge was absent from the premises when the blaze occurred, leading to the unexpected revelation of substantial currency holdings within his quarters. Subsequently, a Supreme Court-constituted internal investigation committee determined there was "adequate evidence" supporting the allegations against the judicial officer. The panel concluded that Justice Varma and his family members maintained direct oversight of the location where the monetary cache was discovered. Following these findings, Justice Varma was administratively transferred to the Allahabad High Court. On July 18, he formally approached the Supreme Court seeking nullification of the internal inquiry report and the former Chief Justice of India's dismissal recommendation. In his legal arguments, Justice Varma contends that revealing his identity would result in "irreversible damage and harm" should his application be rejected. He emphasizes that as an active High Court judge, the internal investigation process was structured to maintain strict confidentiality protocols. The petitioner argues that public disclosure of his identity at this juncture would significantly compromise his professional dignity and personal reputation, particularly since the allegations remain unsubstantiated through formal legal proceedings. He maintains that premature exposure could prejudice any future deliberations regarding his case. Justice Varma has specifically cited previous unauthorized media disclosures of confidential inquiry documents, claiming these leaks resulted in "misleading and prejudicial reporting" against him. He argues that such unauthorized revelations have already damaged his standing within the legal community and public perception. Currently facing potential impeachment proceedings in Parliament, Justice Varma's petition challenges both the procedural integrity and substantive conclusions of the internal investigation. He alleges the inquiry process contained fundamental procedural deficiencies and relied exclusively on "speculative questions rather than formal complaints." The case represents a unique intersection of judicial accountability mechanisms and individual privacy rights within India's legal system. The Supreme Court's handling of this anonymity request could establish important precedents for future cases involving judicial officers under investigation. The petition seeks comprehensive relief including the complete dismissal of the inquiry report and the withdrawal of removal recommendations made by judicial authorities. Justice Varma's legal team argues that the investigation failed to meet established procedural standards required for such serious allegations against sitting judges. This development occurs amid broader discussions regarding transparency and accountability within India's higher judiciary, highlighting the delicate balance between public scrutiny and individual rights within the legal profession.
Time of India
41 minutes ago
- Time of India
Cash haul row: SC questions Justice Yashwant Varma over his petition against impeachment; posts plea for hearing on July 30
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday raised several questions while hearing Justice Yashwant Varma's plea seeking to invalidate an in-house inquiry committee's report that indicted him over a large quantity of burnt cash found at his official residence during his tenure as a Delhi high court judge. A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A G Masih questioned senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Varma, asking, "Why did you appear before the inquiry committee? Did you come to the court that the video be removed? Why did you wait for the inquiry to be completed and the report be released? Did you take a chance of a favourable order there first?" The bench also expressed concern over the parties named in the petition and observed that the in-house inquiry report should have been filed along with the plea. In response, Sibal argued that Article 124 lays out the process and said, "The release of video on SC website, public furore, media accusations against judges are prohibited as per constitutional scheme." The court then directed Sibal to file one-page bullet points and correct the memo of parties, and posted the matter for hearing on July 30. Justice Varma has challenged the May 8 recommendation made by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, which urged Parliament to begin impeachment proceedings against him. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Libas Purple Days Sale Libas Undo In his plea, Justice Varma claimed the inquiry had "reversed the burden of proof", effectively requiring him to disprove the allegations instead of the panel proving them. He alleged that the panel's findings followed a 'preconceived narrative,' and that the inquiry was rushed 'even at the expense of procedural fairness'. According to the petition, the panel reached adverse conclusions without granting him a full and fair hearing. The report, prepared by a three-judge committee led by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu of the Punjab and Haryana high court, concluded that Justice Varma and his family had "covert or active control" over the storeroom where the half-burnt cash was discovered, amounting to serious misconduct warranting removal. The panel conducted the inquiry over ten days, examined 55 witnesses, and visited the site of the accidental fire, which broke out around 11:35 pm on March 14 at Justice Varma's official residence in Delhi. At the time, he was serving as a Delhi High Court judge; he currently serves in the Allahabad high court. Following the findings, then CJI Khanna wrote to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi recommending Justice Varma's impeachment.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
'Did you take chance…?': SC to Justice Yashwant Varma on his plea against probe into cash at his home
'Why did you appear before the inquiry committee? Did you take chance of favourable order there first?' the Supreme Court asked Justice Yashwant Varma on Monday, as he sought quashing of an adverse report of the SC in-house committee. Justice Yashwant Varma(PTI File) The committee found him guilty of misconduct over the unaccounted-for cash found at his Delhi residence in March. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Varma, submitted that there is a process to be followed under Article 124 of the Constitution, and that a judge can't be a subject of public debate, PTI reported. At this point, the bench asked, "Why did you (Justice Varma) appear before the inquiry committee? Did you take a chance of a favourable order there first?" Justice Varma's plea challenges the probe report and the committee's very remit. It also seeks quashing of the then CJI Sanjiv Khanna's recommendation to initiate impeachment proceedings against him. For now posted at the Allahabad high court, Justice Varma is staring at action via Parliament. Also read | Lok Sabha will initiate proceedings to remove Justice Yashwant Varma: Kiren Rijiju When cash was allegedly found by firefighters in a blaze at his residence on March 14, he was a judge of the Delhi HC. He was not present there, and has strongly denied any involvement, asserting that neither he nor his family members placed the cash in the storeroom. He has also alleged that the probe committee proceeded in a pre-determined fashion and merely drew inferences. He wants that the recommendation by the CJI — asking the President and Prime Minister to start his removal process — be declared unconstitutional, ANI reported. Also read | BJP orchestrated VP Jagdeep Dhankhar's exit over Justice Varma: Cong He has further argued that the in-house procedure extended beyond its role of self-regulation and fact-finding: 'By culminating in recommendations for removal from constitutional office, it creates a parallel, extra-constitutional mechanism." The committee constituted on March 22 was comprised of Justices Sheel Nagu (then CJ of Punjab and Haryana high court), GS Sandhawalia (then CJ of Himachal Pradesh HC), and Anu Sivaraman (judge of Karnataka HC. (with agency inputs)
