Karnataka High Court Reserves Verdict On Bail Pleas Filed By Actor Darshan, Others In Renukaswamy Murder Case

The Karnataka High Court on Monday (December 9) reserved its order on the bail petition filed by Kannada actor Darshan Thoogudeepa Srinivas, Pavitra Gowda and other co-accused arrested in the Renukaswamy Murder case.

Justice S Vishwajith Shetty, reserved the verdict after hearing all the parties. The court said, “Order reserved. Interim bail granted to A-2 (Darshan) to continue”.

Accused Darshan, Pavitra, Anu Kumar, Lakshman M, V Vinay, Jagadeesh, Pradoosh S Rao and Nagaraju R had moved the high court seeking bail after the sessions court had rejected it. Earlier, the court had granted bail to Keshavamurthy. During the hearing the high court released Darshan on interim medical bail to undergo surgery.

During the hearing Special Public Prosecutor Prasanna Kumar opposed the petitions saying, “There is strong prima facie case against the accused. This is a clear case of murder and not a case of simple assault or anything else.”

Kumar contended that deceased Renukaswamy was deceitfully brought from Chitradurga to Bengaluru. Referring to the accused statement he pointed out that the deceased was told to meet accused Darshan and confess to his crime and then he would be let go.

Emphasising that a case of abduction under Section 364 of IPC was made out it was contended, “It is not the case of anybody that A-4 and other accused were known to the deceased so he went with them from Chitradurga to Bengaluru. They were all strangers, milord.”

Corroborating the eyewitness statement the prosecution relied on technical evidence like CCTV footage showing the cars arriving at the shed which were occupied by Darshan and Pavitra. Call data records to show the location of each of the accused.

Refuting the contention of the defence that there is no material that deceased died at the spot Kumar said “This is a crime scene milord, nobody will bring a doctor and confirm whether the deceased has died.”

Further, he pointed to the external injuries suffered by the deceased due to the assault and said “Even a vehicle parked inside the shed had blood of the deceased.”

Reliance was placed on a scientific study to point out that DNA profiling can be done on blood samples found even on washed clothes. Darshan had claimed that the clothes recovered from him allegedly containing blood stains were washed by his servant and thus the probability of recovery of blood stains was doubtful.

Kumar has also submitted that even after Gowda allegedly started receiving foul messages she did not block the deceased on Instagram nor did she lodge a police complaint against him for sending her foul messages.

He said “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 the mobile number of A-3 saying it is her number and telling the deceased to 'please call on this no'”.

Elaborating on the point of conspiracy he said, “The accused (Darshan and Pavitra) had knowledge of the deceased being brought to Bengaluru. Visuals of A-1 and A-2 are captured in CCTV installed at the house of A-1. A-3 who had first visited the scene of crime went to the hotel to inform A-2 about the deceased being brought. Following which A-1 and A-2 travel together to the shed where the deceased is brought and everything is captured on CCTV.”

The prosecution submitted that grounds of arrest would primarily include disclosing whatever material was there with me (Investigating officer) after arresting the accused to be disclosed in the grounds of arrest at the time of remand.

Further on the point of delay in recording of evidence the prosecution referred to Apex court judgments and contended “Apex court says only explanation for delay in recording statement of witness is to be provided. I have explained the same. I have given it in the chargesheet. This was made known to the sessions judge also.”

Senior Advocate C V Nagesh appearing for Darshan contended that the deceased was a "menace to the orderly society" as he would send vulgar messages.

Nagesh had said "Messages were shared not only to me but several women. I am certainly not saying that this can be the reason for his death...A man (deceased) who has no respect, no regard, does not want to respect woman in society, a lawless person he has been glorified, made a national hero in the case while degrading my image in the society."

Nagesh has also pointed to the alleged lapses in the Police investigation and discrepancies in the prosecution evidence with regards to allegations of abduction, destruction of evidence and recovery of material from the scene of crime and from his own house.

He claimed that the police were aware of the scene of crime even before Darshan's arrest and still, no seizure panchanama was done. He claimed the panchnama was prepared only on June 11, to show as if it was done at Darshan's instance. He also argued that no inquest was done till June 11; even the post mortem was not conducted until then, even though the body was found on June 9.

He even claimed that one bottle of blood of the deceased was available with the FSL and the possibility of concoction cannot be ruled out.

Nagesh also said that money recovered from Drashan's house was a loan amount returned to him by one Mohan a month before the offence.

So far as call records relied on by the prosecution are concerned, Nagesh said the same pertained to persons "known" to the actor for years, including his manager, girlfriend, servants, driver etc.

Senior Advocate Sandesh S Chouta appeared for accused no. 11—R Nagaraju has argued that grounds of arrest, as mandated by the Apex Court in cases of DK Basu and Arnesh Kumar, were not provided to him at the time of arrest.

While counsel for Pavitra Gowda prayed for bail contending that there was no conspiracy entered into between the accused to murder the deceased. It was said, “She is a woman does not have any prior antecedents. This was a stray incident that happened. There is no prima facie case having been committed by the petitioner. She has a daughter who is studying in the 9th standard. Petitioner may be extended benefit of bail, considering her case separate from other accused”.

Senior Advocate Aruna Shyam appearing for accused no 12, contended that the only allegation against this petitioner is that by hand he has assaulted the deceased. He pointed out that the prosecution has not conducted proper investigation during the Golden Hour after the alleged incident. There is inordinate delay in conducting Post mortem, recording of statement of witnesses and delay in seizure of materials.”

Darshan and 16 others have been charged for offences punishable under Section 120B, (Conspiracy), 201 (destruction of evidence), 364 (Abduction/kidnapping), 302 (murder) and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Case Title: Darshan v. State of Karnataka

Case No: CRL.P 11096/2024