The Supreme Court has expressed strong reservations regarding the Karnataka High Court's decision to grant bail to actor Darshan Thoogudeepa in connection with the Renukaswamy murder case, suggesting the High Court did not appropriately exercise its discretion. The Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, voiced serious concerns about the High Court's approach, even questioning whether the High Court had applied its mind judicially while granting bail. The Supreme Court has reserved its order on the bail granted to actor Darshan in the Renukaswamy murder case, criticizing the High Court's approach.

The case involves the alleged murder of Renukaswamy, who was reportedly a fan of Darshan. The prosecution alleges that Darshan and his associates abducted Renukaswamy from Chitradurga and subjected him to torture in a shed in Bengaluru in June 2024. The alleged motive behind the abduction and torture was that Renukaswamy had sent obscene messages to actress Pavithra Gowda, who is said to be Darshan's partner. Renukaswamy later died from the abuse, and his body was allegedly disposed of in a drain.

Darshan, along with other accused individuals, including Pavitra Gowda, Anu Kumar, Lakshman M, V Vinay, Jagadeesh, Pradoosh S Rao, and Nagaraju R, had initially sought bail from the sessions court, which was rejected. Subsequently, they approached the High Court, which granted them bail in December 2024.

The State of Karnataka then filed a special leave petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court's bail order. During the hearing, the Supreme Court orally remarked that it was "not at all convinced" by the High Court's reasoning for granting bail. The Supreme Court further directed Darshan's lawyers to provide compelling reasons why the court should not interfere with the High Court's decision.

The Supreme Court's critical observations suggest a strong disagreement with the High Court's assessment of the case and the factors considered while granting bail. The Supreme Court emphasized that it felt the High Court did not "exercise its discretion properly". This remark underscores the Supreme Court's concern that the High Court may have overlooked crucial aspects of the case or misapplied the principles governing the grant of bail.

The Supreme Court has now reserved its order on the plea against Darshan's bail, indicating that it will carefully review the arguments presented and the evidence on record before making a final determination. The Supreme Court has also demanded final written submissions before its verdict. The Supreme Court's decision will have significant implications for the case, potentially leading to the cancellation of Darshan's bail and his subsequent re-arrest. More broadly, the case highlights the importance of judicial discretion in bail matters and the need for High Courts to carefully consider all relevant factors before granting bail, especially in serious offenses.