Kiran Raj

While cancelling the bail granted to Kannada actor Darshan in the Renukaswamy murder case, the Supreme Court cautioned prison officials that any “special” treatment to undertrials would trigger immediate administrative action. In a concurring order, Justice J.B. Pardiwala wrote that “the day we come to know that the accused persons are provided with some special or five-star treatment within the jail premises, the first step in the process will be to place the jail superintendent under suspension including all other officials involved in such misconduct.”

The warning accompanies the Bench’s  decision allowing the State of Karnataka’s appeals, setting aside the Karnataka High Court’s order dated December 13, 2024, cancelling bail, directing immediate custody, and calling for an expeditious trial. The Court recorded that “all these appeals are allowed… [t]he bail granted to the respondents / accused persons is hereby cancelled… [and] the concerned authorities are directed to take the accused into custody forthwith,” clarifying that its observations are confined to the bail issue.

Also Read: Supreme Court Quashes High Court Bail | Slams “Callous” Release Of Kannada Actors Darshan, Pavitra Gowda In Chilling Renukaswamy Murder Case

Prefacing his concurrence, Justice Pardiwala noted: “My esteemed brother Justice R. Mahadevan has just pronounced a very erudite judgment… [It] conveys a very strong message that whoever the accused may be, howsoever big or small the accused may be, he or she is not above the law… the justice delivery system at any level should ensure at any cost that the Rule of Law is maintained.”

To ensure uniform awareness and compliance, the concurring order further directs: “The Registry is directed to circulate one copy each of this Judgment to all the High Courts and all the Jail Superintendents across the country through their respective State Governments.”

In assessing the bail orders, the Court recorded: “On a cumulative analysis, it is evident that the order of the High Court suffers from serious legal infirmities… [and] amounts to a perverse and wholly unwarranted exercise of discretion.” The judgment also states that “no individual – however wealthy, influential, or famous – can claim exemption from the rigours of law,” and that “[a] celebrity status does not elevate an accused above the law, nor entitle him to preferential treatment in matters like grant of bail.”

Also Read: Knife Is A Deadly Weapon Even If Not Used To Cause Injury | Delhi HC Upholds Conviction Under Section 397 IPC For Brandishing Weapon During Robbery

In the specific context of A2, the Court recorded that “A2’s antecedents, influence, jail misconduct, and the seriousness of the charges against him make him unfit for bail, and the order granting bail to him, is based on non-application of mind, perverse, and hence, legally unsustainable.”

Concluding, the Bench ordered: “The order dated 13.12.2024 passed by the High Court is set aside. The bail granted to the respondents / accused persons is hereby cancelled. The concerned authorities are directed to take the accused into custody forthwith. Given the gravity of the offence, the trial shall be conducted expeditiously… [and] the observations made herein are strictly confined to the issue of bail.”

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.