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
38 minutes ago
- Time of India
Registrar can't alter birth certificates relating to disputed paternity, rules Kerala high court
Kochi: High court has held that the registrar of births and deaths in local bodies cannot make corrections in birth certificates relating to disputed paternity, as such matters require a full-fledged trial, adjudication and judicial imprimatur. The bench of Justice C S Dias further clarified that the circular issued by local self-govt department on Dec 16, 2015, mandates that if the father's name is to be changed in the birth records, a DNA test report, an agreement attested before a notary public and an order from a competent court must be produced. HC was considering a petition by a divorced man challenging the correction made in his son's birth certificate, by which his name had been replaced with that of his ex-wife's present partner. The petitioner alleged that the registrar of Payyannur municipality had made the change without issuing notice to him or affording him an opportunity of being heard. According to the petition, the petitioner had married the woman in May 2010, and she gave birth to a child in March 2011. Post-delivery, she went to her paternal home with the child for recuperation. Later, in April 2011, she went missing along with the child. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Up to 70% off | Libas Purple Days Sale Libas Undo On a habeas corpus petition filed by the petitioner, the woman appeared and stated that she desired to live with her lover. In Dec 2011, their marriage was dissolved by mutual consent. Thereafter, the woman and her partner filed a joint application before the municipality registrar to change the father's name in her son's birth certificate, producing certain documentary evidence. Based on this, the registrar altered the entry, prompting the petitioner to move HC. Upon examining the matter, HC noted that, as per Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a child born during the subsistence of a valid marriage, or within 280 days after its dissolution, is presumed to be the legitimate offspring of the husband, unless it is proved that the spouses had no access to each other during the relevant period. In the present case, it was an admitted fact that the child was born during the subsistence of the marriage, and there was no admission by the parties or declaration by a competent court that the petitioner was not, conclusively, the legitimate father of the child. HC further held that under the Act and the Rules governing corrections to the register of births and deaths, the registrar is empowered to correct or cancel an entry only in cases of clerical or formal errors, or where the entry has been fraudulently or improperly made. Such corrections are to be made by a marginal note, without altering the original entry. Disputed questions of paternity fall outside the scope of the registrar's powers. Quashing the altered birth certificate, HC directed the registrar to reconsider the matter after hearing all parties.
India Today
42 minutes ago
- India Today
Rajasthan man, 53, to be tried as juvenile for raping minor 37 years ago
Thirty-seven years after raping an 11-year-old girl in Rajasthan's Ajmer, a man, now nearly 53, was declared a juvenile by the Supreme Court. The court upheld the conviction but sent the case to a Juvenile Justice Board for sentencing under the Juvenile Justice incident occurred in November 1988 when the victim was raped while fetching water at her school. The Supreme Court bench, led by Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih, reviewed school records showing the convict was born in 1972, making him 16 years and 2 months old at the time. advertisementThe court set aside the previous five-year jail sentence and directed that the punishment follow the Juvenile Justice Act of 2000 which limits penalties to three years in a juvenile home. As the convict is now 53, legal experts suggest he may face alternative penalties like community service. He has already served one year in jail during the court noted the issue of juvenility was not raised during the trial or High Court proceedings. It was brought up for the first time in the Supreme Court appeal. In January 2025, the court ordered Rajasthan authorities to verify the convict's age. A report from the Additional Sessions Judge in Ajmer confirmed his 1972 birth year based on school bench said that juvenility can be raised at any stage even after the case has been resolved. The conviction was upheld based on the victim's statement, supported by witness testimonies and medical evidence. The court stated that a credible victim statement alone can be sufficient for conviction in sexual offense cases and there will be no need further corroboration.- Ends
Hindustan Times
42 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Important cases heard by Supreme Court on July 24
Important cases heard by the Supreme Court on Thursday, : Important cases heard by Supreme Court on July 24 * SC stayed the Bombay HC verdict acquitting all 12 accused in the 2006 Mumbai train bomb blasts case but said they need not return to jail. * SC called the Karnataka HC's decision to grant bail to Kannada actor Darshan Thoogudeepa and six others in the Renukaswamy murder case a "perverse exercise' of discretionary power. * SC expressed the possibility of remanding on July 25 the matter over the stay of movie "Udaipur Files - Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder" back to the high court. * SC agreed to examine a plea seeking contempt action against Assam government authorities for allegedly violating the top court directives during its demolition exercise in Goalpara district. * SC agreed to list a batch of pleas questioning the delay on the part of the central government in appointment of judges after the collegium reiterated their names. * SC agreed to hear on July 28 a plea questioning whether BS VI-compliant vehicles should have an end-of-life period of 15 years for petrol variants and 10 years for diesel variants in the National Capital Region. * SC agreed to hear on July 28 a plea of West Bengal government against the Calcutta HC decision staying the new list of other backward classes . * SC agreed to hear next week a plea challenging the appointment of Jharkhand DGP Anurag Gupta claiming the due process was not followed. * SC dismissed a plea alleging bogus voting registration, saying the court's PIL jurisdiction was being "misused and abused". * SC dismissed a plea to appoint an expert committee to conduct a comprehensive study on the adverse impact of direct cash benefit, freebies and other state-sponsored schemes * SC dismissed a plea to ensure installation of six airbags in passenger vehicles and said the matter was exclusively within the policy domain. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
