The legal saga surrounding Kannada actor Darshan Thoogudeepa, implicated in the Renukaswamy murder case, has seen numerous twists and turns, with his legal team employing various strategies. Recent arguments presented by Darshan's lawyer have captured public attention, specifically regarding the possibility of withdrawing the case under certain conditions.

Throughout the investigation, Darshan's legal representatives have maintained his innocence, asserting that he has been falsely implicated. Senior Advocate C.V. Nagesh, representing Darshan, argued before the High Court of Karnataka that the police fabricated evidence against the actor, including the alleged recovery of objects used to torture Renukaswamy. Nagesh claimed that the police had prior knowledge of the crime scene but presented the evidence as if it was discovered following Darshan's arrest. He further argued that Renukaswamy voluntarily traveled to Bengaluru, disputing claims of kidnapping.

The defense has also raised concerns about the integrity of the evidence. Advocate Nagesh pointed out discrepancies in the Forensic Sciences Laboratory (FSL) report, suggesting potential tampering with blood samples. He claimed that a bottle of Renukaswamy's blood was sent to FSL, raising the possibility that a drop of blood could have been placed on Darshan's shoes. Nagesh has also argued that the evidence against Darshan was manipulated during the investigation and resembled a narrative from "Arabian Nights".

Darshan's legal team has also addressed media portrayals of the actor. Nagesh expressed concern that Darshan had been unjustly labeled guilty by the media, with coverage effectively conducting a pre-trial and concluding he deserves either a life sentence or capital punishment. Despite this, Nagesh affirmed his trust in the judicial system.

Adding another layer to the complexities of the case, Darshan's health has also been a point of contention. He reportedly suffered from severe back pain and initially refused treatment arranged by the Ballary jail authorities, insisting on a transfer to Bengaluru for medical care. Darshan had previously sought home-cooked meals and adequate bedding, arguing that the prison food was insufficient for maintaining his health, but this plea was dismissed by the High Court.

In a significant development, the Supreme Court cancelled the bail previously granted to Darshan, along with Pavithra Gowda and five other accused, citing "serious infirmities" in the High Court order. The Supreme Court stated that the High Court's order reflected a "mechanical exercise" and an inappropriate examination at the pre-trial stage. The court also raised concerns that granting bail in such a serious case risked potential influence by the accused.

The legal proceedings are ongoing, and the focus remains on uncovering the truth behind Renukaswamy's death.