Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan allowed the appeals challenging the grant of bail to several accused, set aside the High Court’s order, and ordered immediate custody. The Court recorded that “the bail granted to the respondents / accused persons is hereby cancelled” and that the authorities are “directed to take the accused into custody forthwith.” It further directed that the trial be conducted expeditiously and clarified that its observations were confined to the issue of bail and would not influence the merits of the trial.

The appeals arose from a common order dated 13 December 2024 by the High Court at Bengaluru enlarging multiple accused on bail in Crime No. 250 of 2024 registered at Kamakshipalya Police Station, Bengaluru City. The case concerns alleged offences punishable under Sections 120B, 364, 384, 355, 302, 201, 143, 147, 148, 149, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Also Read: Is Judicial Officer Eligible For District Judge Post In Bar Quota? | Supreme Court Flags Article 233(2) Issue And Refers Matter To Constitution Bench

According to the record, the matter began with the discovery of an unidentified male body on 9 June 2024 near Satva Anugraha Apartment, Sumanahalli, Bengaluru. A security officer lodged the initial complaint, upon which an FIR was registered against unknown persons for offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The investigation led to the arrest of multiple accused: Accused Nos. 1, 2, 11, 12, and 14 were arrested on 11 June 2024; Accused Nos. 6 and 7 were arrested on 14 June 2024; all were remanded to judicial custody. Ultimately, seventeen persons were implicated, and a charge sheet with two supplementary charge sheets was filed before the jurisdictional court.

The judgment summarises specific charges against the respondents before the Supreme Court. For instance, A2 (Darshan @ D. Boss, Actor) faced allegations under Sections 302, 34, 120B, 355, 143, 147, 148, 149, 201, and 364 IPC; A11 (Nagaraju R.) was charged, inter alia, under Sections 149, 201, 302, 34, 120B, 143, 147, 148, 355; A7 (Anu Kumar @ Anu, Driver) was booked, among others, under Sections 149, 201, 364, 384, 302, 34.

The prosecution narrative, as recorded by the Court, alleged that A1 was in a relationship with A2; since February 2024, the deceased (Renukaswamy) allegedly sent obscene messages via Instagram to A1’s account. In response, A1, A2, A3, and A10 allegedly conspired by telephonic communication to trace, kidnap, and murder the deceased. The narrative details how, on 3 June 2024, A1 purportedly requested the deceased’s phone number and sent the number of A3 as if it were her own; on 5 June 2024, the deceased called A3’s number and shared his location, place of work, and a photograph. Over subsequent days, the plan allegedly expanded through A2’s associates and fans, with instructions to abduct the deceased and bring him to A2; efforts to locate the deceased near court premises were initially unsuccessful.

On 8 June 2024, the conspirators allegedly traced the deceased’s residence, and in the early hours of 9 June 2024, several accused transported the body in a vehicle and dumped it near a stormwater drain by the apartment at Sumanahalli to destroy evidence. Some co-accused thereafter surrendered at Kamakshipalya Police Station. The postmortem report recorded that the deceased sustained 39 injuries, including 13 bleeding injuries and 17 fractured ribs.

Before approaching the High Court, the respondents had sought bail before the LVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-57), via several miscellaneous petitions; all were dismissed. The respondents then filed petitions under Section 439 CrPC before the High Court. Separately, A2 sought interim bail on medical grounds, which the High Court granted on 15 October 2024 for six weeks based on a medical report submitted by prison authorities. Ultimately, on 13 December 2024, the High Court allowed the criminal petitions and enlarged the respondents on bail; the State appealed to the Supreme Court.

In the Supreme Court, learned senior counsel Mr. Sidharth Luthra appeared for the State and, at the outset, assailed the High Court’s order as “ex facie unsustainable” for ignoring material evidence and for non-application of mind. Concerning medical bail granted to A2, the submissions recorded include that the medical opinion of 24 October 2024 did not disclose the type of surgery, prospective date, nature, or requisite post-operative care; despite this, the High Court enlarged A2 on medical bail without constituting a medical board, contrary to precedent. It was also brought to the High Court’s notice that no surgery or substantial treatment was undertaken by the end of the six-week period; nonetheless, the High Court accepted the accused’s version. The State contended that the respondent approached the court with unclean hands, misrepresenting urgency to obtain bail; such conduct should disentitle discretionary relief. The State further submitted that the High Court speculated about trial delay and failed to consider the gravity of offences under Sections 120B, 302, 364, 384, and 201 IPC.

Beyond medical bail, the State’s submissions recorded in the judgment include alleged legal lapses in appreciating abduction under Sections 362 and 364 IPC; it was contended that confining the deceased in a vehicle and transporting him against his will fell within Section 364, and deceitful means used to lure him from Chitradurga to Bengaluru attracted Section 362. It was urged that the High Court erred in holding that circumstantial evidence could not be evaluated at the bail stage, contrary to settled principles. The State’s prayer, as recorded, was to set aside the impugned order granting bail and allow the appeals.

On behalf of the respondents/accused, the judgment records consolidated submissions by their learned counsel. These include that the FIR was initially against unknown persons; arrests were made on 11 and 14 June 2024; though the accused were produced within 24 hours, they were allegedly not informed in writing of grounds of arrest or provided timely access to counsel; copies of remand applications were not furnished; and procedural safeguards under the CrPC and Article 22(1) were said to be violated. It was contended that the arrest and detention documentation was deficient and that mere oral intimation could not substitute written grounds. The respondents argued that the prosecution evidence suffered from material inconsistencies and procedural irregularities; delays in recording key witness statements, including a 12-day gap for one primary eyewitness, undermined credibility.

Regarding physical evidence, it was submitted that claims of bloodstains on clothes recovered from A2 were contradicted by contemporaneous records: the clothes were recovered days later, had been washed and hung; the seizure panchnama did not mention bloodstains. The respondents also pointed to contradictions about abduction, citing statements of the deceased’s parents and another witness that he voluntarily accompanied co-accused and even paid a bill. They asserted lack of direct evidence linking the accused to weapons, delayed statements implicating A2 despite earlier availability of witnesses, and the absence of implication of certain respondents in abduction or assault, noting that mere presence or a single slap could not attract Section 302 IPC.

“On a cumulative analysis, it is evident that the order of the High Court suffers from serious legal infirmities. The order fails to record any special or cogent reasons for granting bail in a case involving charges under Sections 302, 120B, and 34 IPC. Instead, it reflects a mechanical exercise of discretion, marked by significant omissions of legally relevant facts.”

“Moreover, the High Court undertook an extensive examination of witness statements at the pre-trial stage, highlighting alleged contradictions and delays – issues that are inherently matters for the trial Court to assess through cross-examination. The trial Court alone is the appropriate forum to evaluate the credibility and reliability of witnesses.”

“Granting bail in such a serious case, without adequate consideration of the nature and gravity of the offence, the accused’s role, and the tangible risk of interference with the trial, amounts to a perverse and wholly unwarranted exercise of discretion.”

“The well-founded allegations of witness intimidation, coupled with compelling forensic and circumstantial evidence, further reinforce the necessity for cancellation of bail. Consequently, the liberty granted under the impugned order poses a real and imminent threat to the fair administration of justice and risks derailing the trial process. In light of these circumstances, this Court is satisfied that the present case calls for the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C.”

In elaborating the legal framework, the judgment reproduced established principles: “In Puran v. Rambilas… ‘Cancellation of bail is permissible where the order granting bail was perverse, or if the accused tampers with evidence or attempts to influence witnesses.’”

“In State v. Amarmani Tripathi (supra), this Court stated that ‘the Court must examine the likelihood of the accused tampering with prosecution witnesses or attempting to subvert justice. Bail should not be granted if the accused is likely to interfere with the trial process.’”

“Further, it was held that ‘even the likelihood of the accused influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence is sufficient to deny bail.’ In Deepak Yadav v. State of UP, bail was cancelled owing to apprehension of tampering with witnesses.”

Addressing the equality principle, the Court recorded: “In a democracy governed by the rule of law, no individual is exempt from legal accountability by virtue of status or social capital. Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before the law and prohibits arbitrariness. It mandates that all persons – regardless of their popularity, power, or privilege – are equally subject to the law.”

The judgment also cites foundational bail jurisprudence:

“In Gudikanti Narasimhulu… ‘the nature of the charge is the vital factor and the nature of the evidence also is pertinent… the Court [may] consider the likelihood of the applicant interfering with witnesses… [and] enquire into the antecedents of a man who is applying for bail.’”

“In Prahlad Singh Bhati… ‘The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well-settled principles… While granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof… reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with…’”

Summarising the investigative concerns in the record, the judgment notes, inter alia: “The record reveals concrete acts of interference with the investigation including: A2’s role in orchestrating false surrenders by co-accused… payments made to cover up the crime… connections with police officials who delayed and diluted the FIR and postmortem procedures… deletion of CCTV evidence from A1’s residence… continued influence over prosecution witnesses, as seen from public appearances after bail.”

The Court recorded: “On a cumulative analysis… the liberty granted under the impugned order poses a real and imminent threat to the fair administration of justice… [and] calls for the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C.”

Also Read: Parties’ Choice To Trade Goods In ‘Sound Condition’ Prevails Over Earlier ‘As Is Where Is’ Agreement | Delhi HC Upholds Contractual Shift

Justice J.B. Pardiwala appended a separate order concurring with the outcome, adding directions of administrative character and recording: “whoever the accused may be, howsoever big or small the accused may be, he or she is not above the law.”

The Court issued clear directions cancelling bail and directing immediate custody. It recorded: “In view of the foregoing, all these appeals are allowed. The order dated 13.12.2024 passed by the High Court is set aside.” The Court therefore “cancelled” the bail granted to the respondents/accused and “directed [the authorities] to take the accused into custody forthwith.” It added that, “Given the gravity of the offence, the trial shall be conducted expeditiously, and a judgment rendered on merits, in accordance with law.” Finally, it clarified: “the observations made herein are strictly confined to the issue of bail and shall not influence the trial on merits.”

Case Title: State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan etc.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 979.
Case Number: Criminal Appeal Nos. 3528–3534 of 2025 (Arising from SLP (Crl.) Nos. 516–522 of 2025).
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala; Justice R. Mahadevan.