Karnataka High Court Refuses To Cancel Bail In Renukaswamy Murder Case; Says Link To Celebrities No Ground To Deprive Common Man Of Liberty

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a batch of criminal petitions filed by the State seeking to set aside the bail granted to multiple accused persons in the Renukaswamy murder case.

The Bench observed that setting aside bail is a serious matter involving the deprivation of personal life and liberty, which cannot be ordered unless cogent and overwhelming circumstances threaten the fairness of the trial.

The Court firmly held that merely because an accused individual is linked to a high-profile case where celebrities are co-accused does not constitute a valid ground to cancel their bail, reiterating that the law must treat the common man and celebrities equally to render true justice.

The Bench of Justice S Rachaiah observed, "It is equally important to mention that merely because the respondent is linked to a case where celebrities are co-accused is not a ground to set aside the bail order. Moreover, even assuming that the grounds of arrest may not be the reason for granting of bail, the respondent is entitled for bail even on considering the overt-acts."

Special PP Prasanna Kumar P appeared for the Petitioner, while Advocate Gaurav SH appeared for the Accused Persons.

Recently, the Supreme Court had also directed a Bengaluru Court to expedite the hearing in the Renukaswamy murder case involving actor Darshan and others, observing that the progress so far is "very slow". The Court had also sought a report from the Karnataka government on a plea alleging he was being denied basic amenities like food in prison.

Brief Facts

The case of the prosecution was that the first informant, while working as a Security Officer at an apartment complex named "Sattva Anugraha" situated at Sumanahalli, Bengaluru, noticed a male dead body lying near a storm-water drain. The deceased person, later identified as Renukaswamy, bore as many as thirty-nine external injuries on his body. Upon receiving information, the jurisdictional police registered a First Information Report (FIR).

During the investigation, three accused persons voluntarily appeared and admitted their guilt, and subsequent investigation revealed the involvement of other individuals. Consequently, the investigating agency filed a charge sheet against seventeen accused persons for various offences under the Indian Penal Code, including murder, criminal conspiracy, kidnapping, and extortion.

The Respondents (Accused) moved the learned Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge seeking regular bail, which was granted by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner-State filed criminal petitions before the High Court under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, praying to set aside the bail orders and cancel the bail granted to the respondents.

Contention of the Parties

The Petitioner-State contended that the Trial Court committed a serious error in granting bail by placing reliance on a previous precedent regarding procedural lapses in serving the grounds of arrest, which had subsequently been diluted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

It was argued that the respondents acted in furtherance of a common intention to brutally murder the deceased, there were eyewitnesses to the incident, and the casual manner of granting bail demonstrated a total non-application of mind by the Trial Court.

Per contra, the Respondents/Accused argued that setting aside an order of bail is a severe measure that deprives an individual of personal liberty and requires compelling or supervening circumstances, which were completely absent in this case. They further submitted that the respondents were neither celebrities nor influential persons capable of tampering with the prosecution witnesses, and that they had strictly complied with all the conditions imposed by the Trial Court without misusing their liberty.

Additionally, it was urged that the case rested on circumstantial evidence and that the mere fact that the case involved celebrities could not be a ground to deny bail.

Observation of the Court

The High Court observed that in criminal jurisprudence, an accused person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, and personal liberty cannot be lightly deprived. It was noted that while dealing with bail matters, the basic principle that "bail is the rule and jail is an exception" applies equally to all individuals, whether they are celebrities or common men.

The Court emphasized that an order of bail can only be annulled if it is found to be perverse, illegal, or passed on irrelevant considerations, or if supervening post-bail misconduct threatens the fairness of the trial.

The Court further observed that at the time the Trial Court granted bail, the legal precedents governing the strict service of the grounds of arrest were fully binding. Any subsequent dilution or shift in the law by the Apex Court would not automatically render the Trial Court's order illegal or perverse.

The Court noted that the petitioner-State failed to establish any grounds indicating that the respondents violated the bail conditions or misused their liberty.

"It is needless to state that, the cases of either celebrities or the common man must be treated equally to render justice. The process of granting or rejecting bail falls within the discretionary power of the Court, which must be exercised judiciously", the Court said.

Finding that the respondents were neither influential nor public figures, and that they were entitled to bail on the merits of their specific overt acts as well, the High Court held that there was no justification to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Trial Court.

The Court observed, "It is settled principles of law that setting aside the bail is a serious matter involving deprivation of personal life and liberty. The law does not permit annulment of bail order, unless there are cogent and overwhelming circumstances which threaten the fairness of the trial."

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petitions filed by the State.

Cause Title: State of Karnataka v. Dhanraj [Neutral Citation:2026:KHC:30008], State of Karnataka v. Nandeesh [Neutral Citation:2026:KHC:30010] and State of Karnataka v. Puttaswamy [Neutral Citation:2026:KHC:30009]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Special PP Prasanna Kumar P

Respondents: Advocate Gaurav SH

Click here to read/download the Orders