Darshan's bail cancellation order: Here's what the apex court observed and ruled

After hearing the Darshan's case in detail, the Supreme Court stated that it had considered both the grant and the cancellation of bail. It observed that the Karnataka High Court’s order suffered from serious legal infirmities, as it did not record any special or cogent reasons for granting bail under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC. 

The order, according to the court, reflected a mechanical exercise of discretion and omitted legally relevant facts. The apex court noted that the High Court had undertaken an extensive examination of witness statements at the pre-trial stage, highlighting alleged contradictions and delays—matters which, in its view, were for the trial court to assess during cross-examination. It further held that the trial court was the appropriate forum for evaluating the credibility and liability of witnesses.

Also read: Ramya’s reaction to Supreme Court verdict on Darshan: Everyone is equal before the law

Here's what the apex court opined

The apex court opined that granting bail in such a serious case without properly considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the accused’s role, and the possible interference with the trial amounted to a perverse and unwarranted exercise of discretion. It pointed out that well-founded allegations of witness intimidation, coupled with compelling forensic and circumstantial evidence, justified the cancellation of bail. The court also remarked that the liberty granted under the impugned order posed a real and imminent threat to the fair administration of justice and risked derailing the trial.

It further observed that, in light of these circumstances, the case warranted invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 439 of the CrPC. Referring to Article 14, the court reiterated that equality before the law prohibits arbitrariness and ensures that all persons, regardless of popularity or privilege, are equally subject to the law.

Accordingly, the apex court allowed all the appeals, set aside the High Court’s order dated December 13, 2024, and cancelled the bail granted to the accused. It directed the authorities to take the accused into custody immediately. Given the seriousness of the offence, it ordered that the trial be conducted expeditiously and that the judgment be rendered on merits in accordance with law. It clarified that the observations made were confined solely to the issue of bail and should not influence the trial on merits.