Not convinced: Supreme Court questions Karnataka HC bail to Darshan
'This court is not at all convinced by the manner in which the high court (Karnataka), in its discretion, granted bail (to Darshan),' said a two-judge bench of Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan.
Challenging the order of the Karnataka HC, the state filed an appeal in the top court seeking cancellation of the actor's bail.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the actor, faced a tough time in the court, as the SC asked him to give 'good reasons' why it should not interfere with the HC's bail order.
'To be very honest with you, we are not convinced with the manner in which the HC has exercised discretion. We will hear you because your clients are on bail; they (state) have come for cancellation of bail and you must have seen the manner in which the high court had dictated the order,' Justice Pardiwala asked Sibal.
Sibal responded that keeping aside the high court's decision, the court can look into the Section 161 and 164 statements and two to three key witnesses, including the police. The veteran lawyer wanted to know from the judges as to which part of the HC's order the bench found problematic. Justice Pardiwala replied, 'That part of the order where the high court was really saying how to release them on bail.'
The court asked Sibal to come prepared next Tuesday.
According to the prosecution, Darshan, a 47-year-old Kannada actor, was arrested on June 11, 2024, in connection with the murder of 33-year-old Renukaswamy, a native of Chitradurga. The victim's body was discovered near a stormwater drain in Bengaluru on June 9, 2024.
After the investigation, the Bengaluru police filed a charge sheet and arrayed Pavithra as accused number 1 and Darshan as the accused number 2. Police claimed that Renukaswamy's act of sending offensive messages to Pavithra was the motive of the offence committed by Darshan and others.
Initially, a Sessions Court had rejected the bail of Darshan forcing him to knock the doors of the top court.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Bail pleas rejected in QR code scam case
Kochi: High court has dismissed the pre-arrest bail pleas of Vineetha and Radhu, natives of Thiruvananthapuram, who are accused in a case involving the alleged theft of Rs 69 lakh from a shop owned by Diya Krishnan, daughter of actor-turned-politician G Krishnakumar. The bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas rejected the petition based on the police report, which, after examining the petitioners' bank account details, indicated that there was a prima facie case against them. The case arose from the allegation that the petitioners, who were employees at Diya's shop at Kowdiar in Thiruvananthapuram, committed the theft by replacing the shop's QR code scanner. According to the complaint, the alleged fraud began in July 2024 and came to light only during an audit conducted last month. Based on Diya's complaint, the police registered a case against Vineetha, Radhu and Divya. Vineetha and Radhu subsequently approached HC seeking anticipatory bail.
New Indian Express
2 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Cash recovery case: SC to hear Justice Varma's plea against in-house committee report on July 28
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on Monday, July 28, the appeal filed by Justice Yashwant Varma, challenging the in-house committee probe report that indicted him over the recovery of a huge sum of unaccounted cash at his official residence in Delhi. According to the causelist uploaded on the apex court's website, a two-judge Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih will hear Justice Varma's appeal. The hearing assumes great significance, considering the fact that the impeachment process have already been initiated in Parliament for his alleged misconduct in connection with the recovery of cash. On July 17, Justice Varma filed an appeal before the top court challenging the in-house committee report that found him guilty of misconduct. He contended that the mere recovery of cash from the outhouse of his official residence did not establish his culpability. Subsequently, on July 23, he mentioned the matter before a Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai, seeking an early hearing. The Supreme Court agreed to list the matter. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Varma, submitted before the CJI-led three-judge Bench that the matter involved important constitutional questions. The CJI assured him that an appropriate Bench would be constituted to hear the matter but recused himself, citing his prior involvement in internal discussions related to the case. 'I think it will not be proper for me to take up that matter because I was a part of that conversation,' the CJI said.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Cash recovery row: Supreme Court to hear Justice Yashwant Varma's plea against impeachment; Judge claims 'no fair opportunity'
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court is set to hear on July 28 the petition filed by Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad high court challenging the findings of a three-judge in-house inquiry committee and the recommendation by former Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna to initiate impeachment proceedings against him. Justice Varma has alleged that he was denied a "fair opportunity" to respond to the allegations before the committee concluded its report. The controversy stems from an incident on March 14, when a fire broke out at his residence in Delhi -- where he then served as a judge of the Delhi high court. Fire personnel allegedly discovered a large amount of cash at the site. Justice Varma was not present at the time of the incident. Meanwhile, parliamentary affairs minister Kiren Rijiju confirmed on Friday that the Lok Sabha will take up a bipartisan motion for the removal of Justice Varma, following a consensus among political parties. Rijiju stated that 152 MPs from both the ruling alliance and the Opposition have signed the motion, and that the matter will proceed in accordance with the Judges (Enquiry) Act. "This was a unanimous decision by all parties. The motion will first be taken up in the Lok Sabha and then move to the Rajya Sabha," Rijiju said, emphasising unity against perceived judicial corruption. "We shouldn't remain in any doubt, proceedings will begin in the Lok Sabha," he said.
