The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its order on the Karnataka government's plea challenging the bail granted to actor Darshan, criticising the High Court for judicial overreach.
The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on the plea filed by the Karnataka government against the bail granted to Kannada actor Darshan in the Renukaswamy murder case, taking strong exception to the “perverse exercise of judicial power” displayed by the Karnataka High Court.
A Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan delivered a stinging rebuke to the High Court, expressing deep unease with the reasoning and tone of the bail order passed in favour of Darshan.
“What is troubling us is the approach of the High Court,” said Justice Pardiwala. “Look at the manner in which bail application is [dealt] and in the last, and says he says grounds of arrest not assigned in 302 matter?!”
The apex court appeared particularly perturbed by what it described as the High Court's attempt to prematurely pronounce conclusions on the merits of the case, suggesting that the bail order read more like an acquittal than a routine judicial discretion.
"In a lighter vein, don't you think the High Court has basically dictated an order acquittal of all seven?" Justice Pardiwala asked, as quoted by Live Law.
“The manner in which the High Court has dictated the order, very sorry to say, but does the High Court dictate same type of orders in all bail applications?” he further asked.
Also read: SC stays Bombay HC order acquitting 12 in Mumbai blasts case
The court questioned whether the High Court was attempting to find justifications for granting bail, regardless of the substance of the case. "That part where the High Court is panting for reasons to release him on bail... that somehow they have to find something to release these people on bail. It is about the manner in which the High Court has decided the case," the Bench noted during the proceedings, according to a report by NDTV.
The Supreme Court also observed that such missteps could be expected from a lower court but were disconcerting coming from a constitutional court. “That is the understanding of the learned judge? And that too from the High Court? We can understand a session judge committing such mistakes. A High Court judge committing such a mistake?" Justice Pardiwala remarked.
In an earlier hearing, the top court had similarly questioned the Karnataka High Court’s stance, indicating a pattern of judicial reasoning skewed in favour of the accused.
During Thursday’s proceedings, the counsel representing the Karnataka government submitted that the trial court was committed to concluding the trial within six months, with hearings to be held on a day-to-day basis.
However, the Bench questioned the rationale behind the urgency in this particular case, asking: “Why should you do on day to day basis for this matter? There must be undertrial prisoners languishing in jail for 5-7 years waiting for their trial to commence.”
The trial pertains to the alleged murder of Renukaswamy, with Darshan and several others accused of criminal conspiracy and direct involvement in the crime.
The Supreme Court’s reservation of order leaves Darshan’s legal position in flux, as the court considers whether the High Court erred significantly in granting him bail. The matter, widely followed in Karnataka and beyond, has now turned into a broader debate over judicial discretion and responsibility.
Follow us
