What Kannada Actor Darshan Said As His Bail Was Cancelled In Renukaswamy Murder Case
A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan delivered the verdict while hearing the Karnataka government's plea challenging the Karnataka High Court's earlier decision to grant bail. The apex court held that the High Court order contained 'errors' and that bail had been extended 'for certain reasons' which could not be justified. (News18 Kannada)
The bench stressed that 'no one is big or small before the law' and even criticised the prison administration for allegedly allowing Darshan a comfortable stay in custody. The court observed that the jail superintendent 'should have been suspended' for the reported preferential treatment. (News18 Kannada)
Darshan, who had been out on bail since the High Court's ruling, was reportedly in Tamil Nadu when the Supreme Court verdict came. Sources told News18 that the actor had recently returned from an overseas film shoot and was visiting temples with his wife, Vijayalakshmi. His exact location at the time of the announcement remains unclear, but he is believed to have been at a prominent temple in Tamil Nadu. (News18 Kannada)
According to police sources, Darshan's mobile phone has been switched off since the verdict, although officers have managed to establish contact. 'He has said he will surrender himself,' one official told reporters. (News18 Kannada)
The Supreme Court order also applies to six other accused in the case - Pavithra Gowda (A1), Jagadish alias Jagga (A6), Anukumar alias Anu (A7), Pradush (A14), Nagaraju alias Naga (A11), and Lakshman (A12). (News18 Kannada)
Darshan, popularly known as 'Challenging Star' in the Kannada film industry, had been working on his upcoming movie Devil before this latest legal setback. With the bail cancelled, his immediate future now appears to be behind bars once more, as police prepare to take him and the others into custody in compliance with the Supreme Court directive. (News18 Kannada)
The Renukaswamy murder case, in which 17 people have been named as accused, continues to draw intense public and media scrutiny. The Supreme Court's decision marks a fresh turning point in the ongoing trial, reinforcing the message that celebrity status offers no shield from the law. (News18 Kannada)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
25 minutes ago
- Time of India
Darshan Thoogudeepa case: Kannada actor's wife Vijayalakshmi takes over social media, and the Supreme Court cancels bail
Days after Kannada actor Darshan Thoogudeepa was arrested in the Renukaswamy murder case, his wife, Vijayalakshmi Darshan, announced that she would be monitoring her husband's social media accounts. Posting on Darshan 's official social media account, she said that from now on, she will share Darshan's movie updates and promotions. She also requested that fans who love Darshan unite and express their love and positive thoughts for him. a Vijayalakshmi to share updates Her post read, 'My Dear #DBoss Celebrities, Your Challenging Star carries each one of you in his heart. Until he returns to connect with you directly, I will be handling his social media to share updates and movie promotions on his behalf. The love, prayers, and patience you continue to show him and our family give him and our family immense strength. Let's hold on to that unity and positivity—he will be back soon, with the same love and energy you've always known. With gratitude and love, Vijayalakshmi Darshan," said Vijayalakshmi through Darshan's social media page. SC cancels Darshan's interim bail Meanwhile, Darshan's interim bail was cancelled on the orders of the Supreme Court. He was subsequently arrested and taken for questioning at the Annapurneshwari Nagar police station in Bengaluru. It has been reported that he will be produced in court later. Along with Darshan, four others, including actress Pavithra Gowda , have been arrested. The Supreme Court noted that the Karnataka High Court had granted bail without adequately considering intimidation and other illegal acts against witnesses. The government cites Darshan's influence as a threat to the investigation The Karnataka government filed a petition in the Supreme Court, urging that Darshan should not be granted bail in this case. Similarly, the government's legal advisor, A.S. Ponnanna, said, 'If bail is granted in such an important case, the investigation and court proceedings will be affected. Since Darshan is a powerful person, there is a risk that he will use his influence to block the case," he said. The body of the 33-year-old victim from Chitradurga in the Renukaswamy murder case was found in Kamakshipalya, Bangalore, on June 9, 2024. "Get the latest news updates on Times of India, including reviews of the movie Coolie and War 2 ."
The Print
2 hours ago
- The Print
Protests erupt in Chennai over SC order on removal of street dogs in Delhi-NCR
Police said the demonstrations in Delhi were organised despite prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), formerly Section 144 of the CrPC, which is currently in force as part of security measures ahead of Independence Day. According to officials, the protests turned unruly when police attempted to disperse the demonstrators, leading to clashes at some sites. The protests in Chennai came days after similar demonstrations in the national capital. On Friday, Delhi Police registered four FIRs in connection with protests held by dog lovers without prior permission on August 11 and 12 in the New Delhi district. Chennai: Animal lovers and rights activists staged a protest in Chennai on Sunday against the Supreme Court's order directing that all stray dogs in Delhi-NCR be moved to shelters within eight weeks. 'Those who refused to leave the protest sites despite repeated requests were detained. Legal action will be taken against all those found violating the law,' the Delhi Police said. One viral clip from the protests shows the Station House Officer of Tughlaq Road police station being manhandled by protesters, while another video shows a confrontation between a woman sub-inspector and a female demonstrator inside a bus. The protests followed the Supreme Court's August 11 order directing authorities to ensure that all localities in Delhi, Noida, Ghaziabad, Gurugram and Faridabad are free of stray dogs. The court had ruled that captured animals should not be released back onto the streets. On Thursday, a three-judge bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria reserved its order on petitions seeking a stay on the directive. The bench said it would pass an interim order after hearing arguments from all sides. At the outset, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Delhi government, said there was a 'loud vocal minority' opposing the order, while a 'silent suffering majority' supported action. 'In a democracy, there is a vocal majority and one who silently suffers. We had seen videos of people eating chicken, eggs, etc., and then claiming to be animal lovers. It was an issue to be resolved. Children were dying… Sterilisation did not stop rabies; even if you immunised them, that did not stop mutilation of children,' Mehta submitted. Citing World Health Organisation data, the Solicitor General said 37 lakh dog bites were reported in 2024, with 305 rabies deaths, most among children under 15 years of age. 'Dogs do not have to be killed… they have to be separated. Parents cannot send children out to play. Nobody is an animal hater,' he added. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing an NGO, questioned whether municipal authorities had created enough shelter homes for the dogs. 'Now dogs are picked up. But the order says once they are sterilised, do not leave them out in the community,' he argued, seeking a stay on the August 11 order. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi also opposed the directive. He said, 'Dog bites exist, but there have been zero rabies deaths in Delhi this year. Of course, bites are bad, but you cannot create a horror situation like this.' The bench observed that the core problem was the failure of local bodies to implement the Animal Birth Control Rules. Justice Nath remarked, 'Rules and laws are framed by the Parliament, but they are not followed. Local authorities are not doing what they should be doing. On the one hand, humans are suffering, and on the other hand, animal lovers are here.' In its detailed order, the court stressed that the August 11 decision was not taken on a 'momentary impulse' but after two decades of authorities failing to address a matter directly affecting public safety. A separate bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Madadev noted that the issue concerns both human welfare and animal welfare. 'This is not personal,' the bench said. (ANI) This report is auto-generated from ANI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content. Also read: How Delhi is mobilising to save its street dogs — shelters, safe houses, and watch patrols
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
Merely crying of woman cannot make out case of dowry harassment: Delhi HC
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has held that mere fact that a woman was crying, cannot per se make out any case of dowry harassment. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna made this observation while dismissing a petition challenging the discharge of a husband and his family from charges of cruelty and dowry harassment. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now According to the prosecution, the woman, who married in December 2010, allegedly faced harassment and dowry demands from her husband and in-laws. Her family claimed to have spent nearly Rs 4 lakh on the wedding and later alleged that her husband and in-laws demanded a motorcycle, cash, and a gold bracelet. The woman, a mother of two daughters, passed away on 31 March 2014. "Statement of the sister of the deceased under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein she also stated that on the occasion of Holi, she had called her sister and found her crying. However, merely because the deceased was crying, cannot per se make out any case of dowry harassment," the high court said. The trial court had discharged the accused, noting that the woman's death was due to pneumonia, a natural cause. The High Court also highlighted that the post-mortem report confirmed pneumonia as the cause of death, with no evidence of cruelty. "In the present case, to bring in the clause of cruelty leading to the death of the woman, it may be noted that the deceased had died not because of any act of cruelty but for natural reasons... Therefore, Clause (a) to the Explanation annexed to Section 498A IPC is not attracted," the Court said. It also observed that the father of the woman neither mentioned specific incidents nor did he provide proof of giving money to the accused. "Such bald assertions, in the given situation, cannot be held to be even making out a prima facie case of harassment," the judge added. (With inputs from agencies)
