Murder Case: Bengaluru Court Reserves Verdict On Bail For Actor Darshan

The Sessions Court in Bengaluru has recently reserved its verdict on actor Darshan Thoogudeepa’s bail petition related to a murder case.

The proceedings involved Darshan, Pavithra Gowda, and 11 other accused in the Renukaswamy murder case. Judge Jaishankar presided over the session, where legal representatives for the other defendants presented their arguments; however, Darshan’s legal team chose not to make any submissions.

Special government prosecutor P. Prasannakumar also argued during the session, after which the court decided to reserve its ruling until October 9, 2024.

Previously, the 57th Magistrate Court in Bengaluru had adjourned Darshan’s bail hearing until September 27, while Gowda’s was postponed to September 25.

Darshan filed his bail application on September 21.

The Renukaswamy case involves the murder of a 33-year-old resident of Chitradurga, whose remains were found in Kamakshipalya, Bengaluru, on June 9.

Earlier, the Sessions Court granted bail to two other defendants, Nikhil Naik and Karthik, while the High Court approved bail for Keshava Murthy on September 23.

In a significant development, Bengaluru police submitted a detailed charge sheet comprising 3,991 pages against 17 individuals, including Darshan and Gowda. This charge sheet, organized into 7 volumes and 10 files, was presented to the 24th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court.

Police Commissioner B. Dayananda confirmed that it was prepared following an extensive investigation.

Darshan’s case has garnered considerable media attention, particularly after a controversial photograph surfaced showing him socializing with known offenders in the Parappana Agrahara Central Jail. This incident led to the suspension of seven prison officials for allegedly providing preferential treatment.

Karnataka Revenue Minister Krishna Byre Gowda commented on the situation, stating, “If this person is being given extra privileges, it is wrong. Officers who have facilitated such privileges should be held accountable, and action should be taken against them.”

Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International