Karnataka High Court grants regular bail to actors Darshan, Pavithra Gowda and five others in Renukaswamy murder case

Court says accused are entitled for bail as grounds of arrest were not served on them, none of them have any serious criminal antecedents and no chance of early conclusion of trial

The High Court of Karnataka on Friday (December 13, 2024) granted regular bail to seven accused persons, including actors Darshan and Pavithra Gowda in Renukawamy kidnap, torture and murder case.

The Court cited two main reasons for releasing them on bail. Firstly, the Court said that they are entitled for bail for the reason that the police had failed to furnish ground of arrest on the accused persons immediately after their arrest in terms of apex court’s October 3, 2023 verdict in Prabir Purkayasta’s case, which makes service of memo of grounds of arrest on the accused mandatory immediately after their arrest. The Court, citing discrepancies in the records, did not accept the claim of the police that the grounds of arrest were served on Darshan and other accused persons.

Second reason cited by the High Court is that all the seven accused have no serious criminal antecedents, they are in custody for the last six months and chance of trial being completed in the near future is very remote as the prosecution in its charge sheet has cited 262 witnesses and 587 documents in 13 volumes.

Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty passed the order while allowing the separate petitions filed by Darshan, Pavithra Gowda, Nagaraju R, Anu Kumar alias Anu, Lakshman M, Jagadeesh alias Jagga, and Pradoosh S. Rao.

Arrest memo

Meanwhile, the Court directed the State Police Chief to take necessary steps forthwith prescribing a uniform format for communicating to the persons arrested the grounds of arrest in writing, which should include all basic facts of the case leading to the arrest. A copy of such memo of grounds of arrest, communicated to the arrested persons, should also be enclosed along with the remand report when filed before the jurisdictional magistrate seeking remand of the arrested persons.

The magistrates and judges in the district judiciary who exercise powers of remand should also record their satisfaction of compliance, or otherwise, of the requirement mandated under Section 50(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure (corresponding provision under Section 47 of BNSS, 2023) and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, without fail as held by the apex court in Prabir Purkayasta’s case, said Justice Shetty.

Conditions

While directing the accused to execute a personal bond for ₹1 lakh each with two sureties for the like sum, the High Court directed them appear regularly for trial court unless exempted for valid reasons. They were also directed not to threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses, not involve in similar offences in future, and not leave the jurisdiction of the rrial Court without permission until the criminal case is adjudicated. .

Kidnap and murder

On the allegation that accused had intended to murder, the Court said that “from the nature of weapons used by the accused persons to assault the deceased, it cannot be said that they had prepared themselves to assault Renukaswamy and commit his murder. Therefore, whether the accused persons really had the intention to commit the murder of Renukaswamy would be a question that may have to be considered by the trial Court during the course of trial.”

On the charge of kidnap, the High Court said that since Renukaswamy had voluntarily accompanied four of the accused to Bengaluru, the question whether Renukaswamy was kidnapped or abducted for the purpose of committing his murder also arises for consideration, which needs to be thrashed out in the full-fledged trial.

The High Court also noted that statements of some of the eye-witnesses relating to the overt acts of the accused suffers from contradictions.

Published - December 13, 2024 02:50 pm IST