Karnataka HC restrains media from publishing chargesheet details in Renukaswamy murder case
Bengaluru, Sep 10: The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday issued an ex-parte interim order barring media outlets from broadcasting, printing, or publishing any information from the chargesheet against Kannada actor Darshan Thoogudeepa, who is accused along with 16 others in the Renukaswamy murder case.
The restriction will remain in place until the next hearing.
Justice Hemant Chandangoudar, presiding over a single-judge bench, passed the order following a plea by the 47-year-old actor, who requested the court to restrain media organisations from disseminating confidential details contained in the chargesheet and other materials gathered during the investigation.
The case is pending before a Magistrate court.
The High Court noted that despite an injunction issued by a lower court on August 27 in a suit filed by Darshan’s wife Vijayalakshmi, media outlets continued to share confidential information. Finding merit in the petitioner’s arguments, the court ordered media outlets, identified as respondents 3 to 40, to refrain from publishing any details from the chargesheet until the next hearing.
ALSO READ: Karnataka govt. mulling possibility of setting up fast track court to hear Renukaswamy murder case
In its decision, the HC referred to the 2010 Supreme Court ruling in "Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma vs State (NCT of Delhi)", and Clause 5 of the Cable Television Networks Regulation Act, 1995. It also cited a prior judgment from a coordinate bench of the Karnataka High Court.
The court instructed the Union of India to notify the media houses of this ruling.
Darshan was arrested on June 11, 2024, in connection with the Renukaswamy murder case and has been in judicial custody since June 22. Currently he is lodged in Ballari prison.
According to police sources, 33-year-old Renukaswamy, a fan of the actor, had sent obscene messages to Pavithra Gowda (Darshan's friend and co-accused), which enraged Darshan, allegedly leading to his murder. His body was found near a stormwater drain next to an apartment in Sumanahalli here on June nine.
Raghavendra, one of the accused who is part of Darshan's fan club in Chitradurga, had brought Renukaswamy to a shed in R R Nagar here, on the pretext that the actor wanted to meet him. It was in this shed that he was allegedly tortured and murdered.
According to the post-mortem report, Renukaswamy, a native of Chitradurga, died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of multiple blunt injuries.
Police sources said Pavithra, who is accused number one, was the "major cause" for Renukaswamy’s murder, claiming that it has been proved from the probe that she instigated other accused, conspired with them, and took part in the crime.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
P&H High Court denies anticipatory bail to man accused of replacing national flag with saffron flag
Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to Vikas Tomar, who is accused of removing the national flag from a mosque in Gurugram’s Uton village and replacing it with a saffron flag.
Justice Manisha Batra, presiding over the case Vikas Tomar @ Vikash Tomar v. State of Haryana, observed that the allegations against the petitioner were not vague but specific, and supported by conversations between him and other co-accused.
“The gravity of the offence and its potential impact on public order and communal peace cannot be overlooked at this stage,” the Court noted. It further stated that no exceptional circumstances had been presented that would justify granting pre-arrest bail, especially given the “serious communal and constitutional implications” of the alleged conduct.
According to the prosecution, a complaint was filed on July 7 in Bilaspur, Gurugram, reporting that anti-social elements had replaced the national flag atop a mosque with a saffron flag. Audio and video evidence were submitted along with the complaint. Two other accused were initially arrested under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 2 of the Prevention of Insult to National Honours Act, 1971, but were granted bail the same day.
The Sessions Court had earlier denied anticipatory bail to Tomar on July 15, with Additional Sessions Judge Sandeep Chauhan observing that such acts threaten the social fabric in a diverse country like India. He remarked, “Any person of ordinary prudence and slightest of patriotism in his heart would not have dared to commit such a crime.”
Tomar's counsel argued before the High Court that he was not named in the FIR and had no role in the alleged incident. However, opposing counsel representing the State and the complainant contended that Tomar aimed to provoke communal unrest in the region.
Justice Batra, after considering the arguments, concluded that custodial interrogation of the accused was necessary. “No ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out,” the Court held.
Advocate Abhimanyu Singh appeared for the petitioner, while Additional Advocate General Apoorv Garg represented the State of Haryana. Advocate Rosi appeared for the complainant.
The bail plea was dismissed.
