New Delhi: Supreme Court Friday said Kannada film actor Darshan, an accused in the Renukaswamy murder case, is at liberty to approach the court for bail if there was no substantial progress in the trial in the next one year.A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Vijay Bishnoi asked the Karnataka govt to ensure 60 witnesses were examined in one year. The court said the trial court could hear the case without adjournments on flimsy grounds.On Aug 14, 2025, Supreme Court cancelled bail to Darshan and other accused, granted by Karnataka high court on Dec 13, 2024, warning against granting five-star treatment to undertrial prisoners.In his bail petition, Darshan had complained he was denied basic amenities. With only 10 of 272 witnesses examined till now, he said he had to remain in jail for long, which violated Article 21 of the Constitution.Darshan claimed he was not allowed to receive or buy food, clothing and bedding from private sources as permitted under Karnataka Prison Act, 1963.After Supreme Court sought a report from the state on May 4 this year, senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Karnataka, submitted that Darshan was provided all amenities due to an undertrial prisoner.The bench said the trial progress was “extremely slow”. At this pace, it was likely to take a considerable amount of time before 60 witnesses were examined, the bench said.Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Darshan, said against 272 witnesses, in the seven months gone by after his bail was cancelled, only 10 witnesses were examined. He claimed the actor was kept in a quarantine cell and he was not allowed to interact with other prison inmates, while pressing for grant of bail.The top court said it was not time to consider the bail application as “not much time” had passed. Luthra clarified that Darshan’s cell was a quarantine cell during the pandemic. He added Darshan was being allowed to talk to others.On slow progress of the trial, the court was told the prosecution proposed to examine 60 witnesses within a year. When the court was informed the trial judge was holding additional charge and the same was slowing the progress, Luthra claimed it was the defence that was taking more time for cross-examination.
