Supreme Court Cancels High Court Bail in Alleged Kidnap-Torture Murder; Orders Immediate Custody and Expedited Trial

A Bench of Justices R. Mahadevan and J.B. Pardiwala heard appeals by the State of Karnataka against a common High Court order dated 13.12.2024 that had enlarged seven accused on bail in connection with Crime No. 250 of 2024 registered at Kamakshipalya Police Station, Bengaluru. The appeals challenged the High Court’s exercise of discretion in granting regular and medical bail in a case alleging conspiracy, abduction, torture and murder.

The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court order and directed that the accused be taken into custody forthwith. It held that the High Court had committed legal errors and had proceeded to assess evidence and credibility at the bail stage instead of reaching a prima facie conclusion. The Court emphasised that bail already granted could be annulled where the order was “perverse, unjustified, or passed without due regard to material considerations,” and that cancellation was warranted where liberty posed a real risk to the fairness of the trial. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Thus, it is clear that while cancellation of bail is a serious matter involving deprivation of personal liberty, the law does permit annulment of a bail order that is unjustified, legally untenable, or passed without due regard to material considerations. The distinction between annulment of bail orders due to perversity and cancellation for post-bail misconduct must be clearly understood and applied, ensuring a careful, calibrated, and constitutionally sound approach to the administration of criminal justice.” The judgment further repeated that “Rejection of bail when bail is applied for, is one thing; cancellation of bail already granted is quite another,” and that “no individual is exempt from legal accountability by virtue of status or social capital.”

Background The case arose after the nakedly violent discovery on 09.06.2024 of the body of an unknown male near a drain in front of Satva Anugraha Apartment, Bengaluru. Investigation linked the death to an alleged conspiracy traced to persons connected to a celebrity (Accused No.2) and others; 17 persons were implicated and multiple accused were arrested in June 2024. The charge-sheet and two supplements charged several accused inter alia under Sections 120B, 302, 364, 384, 201 and related provisions of the IPC. The post-mortem recorded 39 injuries and multiple fractured ribs.

After lower court remand orders refused bail, the accused sought relief under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The High Court granted regular bail to several accused on 13.12.2024 and had earlier granted interim medical bail to Accused No.2 for six weeks. The State appealed, contending that the High Court erred by treating delayed/faulty service of grounds of arrest and speculative trial delay as determinative, by engaging in detailed appreciation of forensic and witness material at the bail stage, and by failing to require independent medical board assessment for medical bail. The State relied on DNA, serology, CCTV, call data and witness statements that it said established a strong prima facie case and a real risk of tampering and witness influence.

The Supreme Court found that the High Court had improperly engaged with merits, had failed to weigh the gravity of offences and incriminating material, and had accepted procedural lapses as decisive without showing demonstrable prejudice. It held that the medical bail granted on vague grounds and without independent medical board scrutiny was legally infirm and that the liberty enjoyed by the accused posed a tangible risk to the integrity of the trial. The Court therefore set aside the High Court’s order, cancelled bail, directed immediate custody of the accused, and directed that the trial be conducted expeditiously; it clarified that its observations were confined to bail and would not prejudice the trial on merits.

Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 3528 - 3534 OF 2025 (Arising from SLP (Crl.) Nos. 516 – 522 of 2025) Case Title: State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan etc. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Senior Counsel (for the State of Karnataka) For the Respondent(s): Oral and written submissions were advanced by learned counsel for the respondents (names of individual counsel were not specified in the judgment).