Renukaswamy Murder Case: Bail Battle Intensifies with New Revelations
The State of Karnataka opposed the bail plea of Pavitra Gowda, a co-accused in the Renukaswamy murder case alongside Kannada actor Darshan Thoogudeepa Srinivas. During a hearing before the High Court, the prosecution argued that Pavitra Gowda neither blocked the deceased on Instagram nor lodged a police complaint against him despite claiming that he had sent her inappropriate messages. Special Public Prosecutor Prasanna Kumar, representing the State, referred to the exchange of Instagram messages between Renukaswamy and Pavitra Gowda while addressing Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty. Prosecutor Prasanna Kumar submitted, “A-1 (Pavitra) what she should have done on receiving messages from deceased on Instagram, the app provides an option of blocking the user. They did not also file a police complaint.”
Highlighting specific interactions, Prosecution added, “Instead A-1 (Pavitra) sent a message from her account to the deceased mentioning----Drop your number. Their case is that he kept on harassing me (her) by sending messages. But the prosecution case is that from February the chat starts. She did not block the account. Thereafter, on June 5, Pavitra (A-1) since the deceased did not respond, gave mobile number of A-3 saying it is her number and telling the deceased to 'please call on this no.'" Pavitra, in her defense, argued that there was no conspiracy to murder the deceased, asserting her innocence while seeking bail.
The prosecution also claimed that Accused No. 4, who serves as the President of the Darshan Fan Association in Chitradurga, was instructed by Accused No. 3 to follow the deceased when the latter disclosed he was near the local court. Kumar stated, “On June 8, the accused A-4, 6, and 7 followed the deceased in auto and it is captured in CCTV cameras and their location is also captured. The accused sitting in the auto took photos of the deceased. They forwarded the photo to A-10 to confirm whether it is this man.”
Providing further details of the alleged abduction, the Kumar explained, “Then they went near a petrol bunk and a car of A-8 came and he (Deceased) was made to enter the vehicle and made to sit in the middle. The statement of the accused is that since 'you (deceased) sent derogatory messages to A-1 (Pavitra), the A-2 (Darshan) wants to see you. You confess and then we will leave you.' Following which he was brought to Bengaluru." According to the prosecution , these events establish the element of abduction. He stated that the car was later brought to a shed, a fact corroborated by six witnesses.
The prosecution emphasized that technical evidence, including call data records and CCTV footage, contradicts the defense’s argument that the deceased traveled to Bengaluru voluntarily rather than being abducted from Chitradurga.
At the commencement of the hearing, the prosecution also urged the court to revoke the interim medical bail granted to Darshan, arguing that no progress had been made concerning the surgery he was supposedly required to undergo. Prasanna Kumar asserted, “I consulted a doctor and found that if surgery is required, the patient will be given a tablet costing Rs 2 and the Blood Pressure levels will come down within 24-hours. If a patient who has suffered an accident and is also having blood pressure and requires surgery then anesthesia given will take care.” Accusing Darshan of exploiting the court’s leniency, Prasanna Kumar argued, “For five weeks they are not doing anything. My submission is that the interim bail should be cancelled and ask him (A-2) surrender and then consider his regular bail application. There is misuse of the sympathy shown by this court.”
However, the court pointed out procedural lapses, stating, “These documents were available even before the arguments began in the case. You could have filed an application to cancel the bail. Now that after arguments have commenced. How can you say that you (Darshan) surrender first and then hear his bail application. You begin your submissions.” The hearing is set to continue on December 9. Darshan and 16 others face charges under Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 201 (destruction of evidence), 364 (kidnapping/abduction), 302 (murder), and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code.
Cause Title: Darshan v. State of Karnataka
Case No: CRL.P 11096/2024
Bench: Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty
