Introduction:

In a significant development, the Karnataka High Court on December 13, 2024, granted bail to actor Darshan, Pavitra Gowda, and other co-accused involved in the Renukaswamy murder case. The case, which has garnered public attention due to its high-profile nature, revolves around a conspiracy that led to the alleged abduction and murder of Renukaswamy, a man reportedly harassing multiple women, including Pavitra Gowda. The petitioners had previously been denied bail by the Sessions Court, leading to their appeal before the Karnataka High Court. The petitioners—Darshan, Pavitra Gowda, Anu Kumar, Lakshman M, V Vinay, Jagadeesh, Pradoosh S Rao, and Nagaraju R—had moved the High Court seeking bail, challenging the earlier rejection. The court, after detailed arguments from both sides, granted bail to the accused while awaiting a detailed copy of the order.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The prosecution, led by Special Public Prosecutor Prasanna Kumar, strongly opposed the bail applications. Kumar argued that there was a strong prima facie case against the accused, emphasizing that this was not a simple case of assault but a clear case of murder, and more specifically, an abduction under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code. He contended that the deceased, Renukaswamy, had been deceitfully brought from Chitradurga to Bengaluru under the pretence of meeting Darshan to confess his crime. According to the prosecution, the accused had no prior relationship with the deceased, as they were strangers to him, and they had conspired to abduct him. To strengthen their case, the prosecution presented technical evidence, including CCTV footage showing the movements of the accused, as well as call data records indicating the locations of the accused at critical times. The prosecution also relied on the statement of an eyewitness, alongside the physical evidence of blood found in the shed where the deceased was assaulted, to support their case of murder.

The defence, however, strongly contested the charges, arguing that the prosecution’s case was based on circumstantial evidence and lacked a direct link to the death of Renukaswamy. Senior Advocate C.V. Nagesh, representing Darshan, contended that the deceased had been a “menace to society,” harassing multiple women, including Pavitra Gowda, through vulgar messages. Nagesh claimed that the actions of the accused were not motivated by a conspiracy to kill the deceased but were in response to his inappropriate behaviour. He also highlighted alleged lapses in the investigation, pointing to discrepancies in the prosecution’s evidence, including issues related to the recording of statements, delay in conducting post-mortem, and the seizure of evidence from the crime scene and Darshan’s house. Furthermore, Nagesh argued that the police had prior knowledge of the crime scene before Darshan’s arrest but failed to conduct a proper investigation during the critical initial period, often referred to as the “Golden Hour.”

Senior Advocate Aruna Shyam, representing one of the accused, argued that there was no clear evidence connecting her client to the murder. She claimed that her client’s involvement was limited to a physical assault on the deceased, but this did not equate to murder. She also highlighted delays in the police investigation, particularly in recording witness statements and conducting the post-mortem.

The defence team further contended that the charges against the accused were exaggerated and that the prosecution had failed to establish a solid case of conspiracy. They also pointed to inconsistencies in the call records presented by the prosecution, which they argued were not directly linked to the alleged crime but involved individuals with whom the accused had longstanding relationships.

Court’s Judgment:

After hearing the detailed arguments from both sides, the Karnataka High Court granted bail to the accused. Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty, while pronouncing the order, remarked, “Petitions allowed.” The court, however, has not yet provided a detailed copy of the order. The decision came after the High Court had earlier released Darshan on interim medical bail to undergo surgery. The Sessions Court had initially rejected the bail applications, which led to the appeal before the High Court.

In its judgment, the High Court noted the complex nature of the case and emphasized the need for further examination of the evidence. While granting bail, the court refrained from making any final judgments on the merits of the case, leaving the prosecution and defence to present their arguments in future hearings. The High Court’s decision to grant bail was based on a combination of factors, including the fact that Darshan and his co-accused had been in custody for a considerable period, and the ongoing investigation did not show immediate evidence to warrant their continued detention.

The court also acknowledged the serious charges against the accused, but it emphasized that the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty are fundamental principles in the legal system. It noted that while the prosecution had made a strong case, there was no direct evidence connecting the accused to the murder at this stage, and therefore, they were entitled to seek bail.