Bengaluru: Karnataka Home Minister G Parameshwara on Thursday said the state’s Director General of Police (DGP) of Prisons must act with caution following the Supreme Court’s strong observations over the alleged “five-star” treatment provided to Kannada actor Darshan Thoogudeepa in jail.

Why did the Supreme Court step in?

Parameshwara was responding to reporters’ questions about the apex court’s decision to cancel the bail granted to Darshan and other accused in the Renukaswamy murder case.

He said, “The DGP Prisons must have received the order. He will have to perform his duty carefully after the court made stringent observations.”

The minister stressed that no individual is above the law and that everyone must respect it. “We must respect the order. They (accused) have the option to continue their legal battle, which they can do,” he remarked.

When asked about the government’s stance on Darshan’s bail plea, Parameshwara said the law department had fulfilled its responsibilities.

What did the court say about special treatment?

The Supreme Court cautioned the Karnataka government against providing special treatment to the accused in jail.

“The day we come to know that the accused persons are being provided 5-star treatment, the first step would be to place the superintendent into suspension along with all other officials,” the court stated.

Why was bail cancelled?

The judgment came in response to an appeal filed by the Karnataka government against the state high court’s 13 December 2024 order granting bail to Darshan and the co-accused.

In its order, the apex court noted that ‘A2’ (Darshan) is not a common undertrial. It observed that he enjoys celebrity status, mass following, political clout, and financial muscle.

The court said his conduct inside the jail – including recorded instances of VIP treatment, violations of jail rules, and registered FIRs for misuse of facilities – reflects his capacity to defy the system even while in custody.

“If a person can subvert the prison system, the risk of interference with evidence, threatening or influencing witnesses, and tampering with the course of justice is both real and imminent,” the court maintained.
PTI inputs