Kannada Actor Darshan Can Seek Bail If No Substantial Progress In Trial In 1 Year : Supreme Court In Renukaswamy Murder Case

The Supreme Court today(May 15) asked the State of Karnataka to ensure that 60 important witnesses are examined within a period of one year in the Renukaswamy Murder Case. It said that the Trial Court can proceed on a day-to-day basis for the examination of the witnesses. The Court added that if there is no substantial progress in the trial, actor Darshan can approach the Court for bail.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Vijay Bishnoi has been hearing a petition filed by Darshan seeking basic amenities provided as per the jail manual. It may be recalled that this bail was cancelled last year, along with other co-accused persons.

On May 4, the Court asked for a report from the State , which was represented to the bench by Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra(for the State of Karnataka). As per the report, Darshan has been provided with all amenities which an undertrial prisoner is entitled to. The Court had also sought a report from the trial court on the progress.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi(for Darshan) submitted that the State intends to examine 272 witnesses, and in the seven months gone by after his bail was cancelled, only 10 witnesses have been examined. He also complained that the actor has been kept in a quarantine cell and he is not allowed to interact with other prison inmates. Based on these contentions, he asked that bail be granted to Darshan. "I submit if there is no progress for the three to four months, [then bail may be considered]."

However, Justice Pardiwala said it's not the time when bail application can be considered, as not much time has passed. "We will watch for some more time but we will take care of a few things. We will see to it that the trial progresses expeditiously and all amenities which otherwise an undertrial prisoner is entitled to under the prison manual shall be provided," he said.

The State clarified that where Darshan is kept used to be called the quarantine cell during the pandemic. Luthra also told the Court that he is carrying photographs which show that Darshan is allowed to talk to others.

Justice Pardiwala asked the State why the trial is progressing at a slow pace. At this, Luthra stated that the State only proposes to examine 60 witnesses within a year. "Don't just keep multiplying the witnesses," Justice Pardiwala responded.

Rohatgi pointed out another issue that the trial judge, who is conducting the trial, holds an additional charge, and that's why the progress is slow. To this, Luthra told the Court: "The challenge we are facing is that we concluded the examination in chief within a day. They are then dragging it for five-six days."

Considering this, the Court passed an order that it will see that substantial progress is made in the trial, and if not, it will consider the plea for bail after one year.

"In pursuance of our order referred to above, we have received a report from the 56th CT Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, indicating the progress of the trial and examination of witnesses before the Trial. It appears from the report that the charge came to be framed on 3 November, 2025. In the last seven months, the prosecution has been able to examine 10 witnesses. The report further indicates that the prosecution proposes to examine 60 witnesses on priority basis who are vital to indicate the role played by the accused persons. As such, in the chargesheet, 272 witnesses have been shown.

The report further indicates that the State may examine 150 in all. We are of the view that the progress so far, as a trial is concerned, is very slow. It is true that the defence counsel is taking time to conduct the cross-examination. But if the trial is proceeding at this pace, it is going to take a long time even before 60 witnesses are examined. In such circumstances, it is for the trial court to see that witnesses are examined on a regular basis and it is not adjourned on any flimsy ground.

If need be, the trial court may proceed to examine the trial on day to day basis. We would like to observe the progress of the trial for a period of one year. At the end of one year, if there is no substantial progress in the trial, we will look into the matter accordingly. We want the defence to cooperate with the trial court and see to it that the witnesses are examined as fast as possible.

There is a second issue which is raised, which is with respect to providing basic amenities which the petitioner is entitled to in the prison. In this regard, there is an exhaustive affidavit duly affirmed by the Chief Superintendent, Central Prison, Bengaluru. In the affidavit, the following has been stated. All that we want to say is that the petitioner shall be provided with all basic amenities which any undertrial prisoner is entitled to as per the jail manual. If there is no substantial progress, he may make a bail application again.

We are further informed that the presiding officer of trial is holding an additional charge because the regular Court 57 is vacated. The High Court shall took into this issue on the administrative side at the earliest. We observe that State shall make all endeavours that the 60 witnesses are examined in this period of one year. "

Case Details: DARSHAN Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA|W.P.(Crl.) No. 159/2026