Renukaswamy Murder Case: Karnataka HC Reserves Order On Actor Darshan's Bail Plea

The High Court noted that technical evidence, eyewitness accounts, and procedural details required closer examination. In the interim, Darshan’s existing bail was allowed to continue.

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court reserved its decision on the bail petitions filed by Kannada actor Darshan Thoogudeepa Srinivas, co-accused Pavitra Gowda, and others in connection with the high-profile Renukaswamy murder case. The court, however, extended the interim bail granted to Darshan.

The hearing involved extensive arguments from both the special public prosecutor (SPP) Prasanna Kumar and senior advocate C V Nagesh, representing Darshan.

Kumar laid out the sequence of events leading to Renukaswamy’s alleged abduction and murder, claiming that the victim, who had no prior connection to some of the accused, was deceitfully lured to Bengaluru under pretences. Citing eyewitness statements and technical evidence, Kumar argued that the accused were captured on CCTV moving to the crime scene.

"This is a clear case of murder, supported by strong prima facie evidence," Kumar said.

The prosecutor highlighted medical reports indicating 39 external injuries on the deceased body and traces of Renukaswamy’s blood found on a vehicle's bumper at the crime scene. He dismissed the defence's claims that DNA profiling from washed clothes is not reliable, asserting that scientific methods were accurate in linking the accused to the crime.

Kumar further argued that actions such as web searches being deleted and evidence being cleaned supported charges under Section 201 of the IPC for the destruction of evidence. He emphasised that the case was not one of simple assault but of a premeditated murder.

"Actions like cleaning evidence and deleting web searches make the case stronger under Section 201 IPC," he said.

Countering these claims, Nagesh argued that the prosecution had failed to provide credible evidence linking Darshan directly to the murder. He questioned the reliability of the medical reports, particularly the claim of bleeding injuries observed months after the post-mortem.

Nagesh also raised concerns about the delayed recording of witness statements, asserting that no acceptable explanation had been provided for this delay. He pointed out that Darshan, despite being on interim bail, had complied with all legal conditions and continued to undergo treatment as per medical advice.

"There has been no violation of the interim bail conditions. Evidence is insufficient to deny bail," Nagesh said, urging the court to consider granting bail on the grounds of insufficient evidence.

Counsel for co-accused, accused Nos. 6 and 7, also prayed for parity in bail considerations, citing the release of another co-accused (No. 13).

After hearing both sides, the High Court reserved its verdict on the bail pleas, noting that technical evidence, eyewitness accounts, and procedural details required closer examination. In the interim, Darshan’s existing bail was allowed to continue.

The case, involving a popular actor and serious allegations, has drawn widespread attention in Karnataka, with both legal and public debates focused on ensuring a fair trial while upholding justice.