STATE OF KARNATAKA versus SRI DARSHAN ETC.

Citation: [2025] 9 S.C.R. 194 · Decided: 14-08-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.B. PARDIWALA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 32 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 9 S.C.R. 194 : 2025 INSC 979
State of Karnataka 
v. 
Sri Darshan Etc.
(Criminal Appeal No(s). 3528-3534 of 2025)
14 August 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala* and R. Mahadevan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the order of the High Court granting bail to the  
respondents-accused persons in a case involving serious charges 
u/ss.302, 120B, and 34 IPC is perverse and legally unsustainable, 
warranting cancellation of bail.
Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.439 – Cancellation of 
bail – When warranted – A2, a celebrity along with co-accused, 
was charged inter alia u/ss.120B, 364, 302, 201 and 204, IPC for 
the murder of a man, who was allegedly kidnapped, tortured, 
and beaten to death by the accused for sending objectionable 
messages to A1, partner of A2 – Respondents granted bail by 
the High Court – Propriety:
Held: Order of the High Court suffers from serious legal infirmities – 
No special or cogent reasons are given for granting bail in a 
case involving charges u/ss.302, 120B, and 34 IPC reflecting a 
mechanical exercise of discretion, marked by significant omissions 
of legally relevant and material facts – The allegation is of a brutal 
and custodial murder of a young man who was allegedly kidnapped, 
tortured, and beaten to death by the accused – This is not a case 
of sudden provocation or emotional outburst – Evidence indicates 
a pre-meditated and orchestrated crime where the accused also 
engaged in systematic destruction of evidence – Granting bail in 
such a serious case, without adequate consideration of the nature 
and gravity of the offence, the accused’s role and the tangible risk 
of interference with the trial, amounts to a perverse and wholly 
unwarranted exercise of discretion – By treating A2’s stature as a 
mitigating factor, the High Court committed a manifest perversity 
in the exercise of its discretion, warranting cancellation of bail – 
Furthermore, the well-founded allegations of witness intimidation, 
* Author
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 
195
State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan Etc.
coupled with compelling forensic and circumstantial evidence, 
further reinforce the necessity for cancellation of bail – Also, the 
liberty granted under the impugned order poses a real and imminent 
threat to the fair administration of justice and risks derailing the 
trial process – A2’s antecedents, influence, jail misconduct, and 
the seriousness of the charges against him make him unfit for bail, 
and the order granting bail to him, is based on non-application of 
mind, perverse, and hence, legally unsustainable – Present case 
calls for the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction u/s.439(2)  – 
Impugned order set aside – Bail granted to the respondents is 
cancelled. [Paras 20.1.4, 22.1.3- 22.1.5]
Bail – Constitution of India – Art.14 – No preferential treatment 
to celebrities in matters of bail:
Held: Constitution of India enshrines equality before law u/Art.14, 
and mandates that no individual however wealthy, influential, or 
famous can claim exemption from the rigours of law – A celebrity 
status does not elevate an accused above the law, nor entitle him 
to preferential treatment in matters like grant of bail – Celebrities 
are social role models their accountability is greater, not lesser – 
By virtue of fame and public presence, they wield substantial 
influence on public behaviour and social values – Granting 
leniency to such persons despite grave charges of conspiracy and 
murder, sends wrong message to society and undermines public 
confidence in the justice system – Popularity cannot be a shield 
for impunity – Influence, resources and social status cannot form 
a basis for granting bail where there is a genuine risk of prejudice 
to the investigation or trial – A2 is not a common undertrial – He 
enjoys celebrity status, mass following, political clout and financial 
muscle – His conduct inside the jail including recorded instances 
of VIP treatment, violations of jail rules, and registered FIRs for 
misuse of facilities reflects his capacity to defy the system even 
while in custody – If a person can subvert the prison system, 
the risk of interference with evidence, threatening or influencing 
witnesses, and tampering with the course of justice is both real 
and imminent – A2’s immediate return to social events, sharing a 
stage with prosecution witnesses, and continued influence over 
police witnesses, despite being on bail, establish that his liberty is 
a threat to the integrity of 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.