New Delhi, July 17 (Reporter) The Supreme Court has expressed serious reservations over the manner in which the Karnataka High Court granted bail to Kannada actor Darshan in the Renukaswamy murder case, stating that it was “not at all convinced” with the High Court’s exercise of discretion. A Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan was hearing a special leave petition filed by the State of Karnataka challenging the High Court’s December 13, 2024, order granting bail to Darshan. He is accused of involvement in the killing of his 33-year-old fan Renukaswamy, who had allegedly sent obscene messages to actress Pavithra Gowda. The victim succumbed to the brutal assault, and his body was later dumped in a drain, according to the police report. At the outset, Justice Pardiwala remarked to Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Darshan, “To be very honest with you, we are not convinced with the manner in which the High Court has exercised discretion. "We will hear you because your clients are on bail and this is a plea for cancellation of bail, but you must have seen the way the High Court dictated the order.” Sibal urged the Court to examine statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, along with two or three key witnesses, keeping aside the High Court’s reasoning. The Bench, however, emphasised that Darshan’s counsel needs to demonstrate strong grounds to prevent interference. “You need to convince us that there is no good reason for this Court to interfere,” Justice Pardiwala said, adjourning the hearing to next Tuesday. When Sibal asked which specific part of the High Court order was problematic, Justice Pardiwala replied, “That part of the order, Mr Sibal, where the High Court was really panting how to release them on bail.” The Bench also asked Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for the State of Karnataka, to highlight any antecedents or post-bail conduct of the accused in the next hearing. Luthra submitted that Darshan’s conduct after being granted bail was concerning. “He is sitting on the stage with one of our key witnesses in a public function. It is a little disturbing,” Luthra said. When Sibal disputed the witness’s significance, Luthra countered, “If he was not a key witness, then what is the definition of a key witness?” The Court will continue hearing the matter next week...////...