No Man is Above the Law

This is the message given through the Supreme Court judgement dated 14th August 2025 affirming the Rule of Law on the eve of our 79th Independence Day!  The order not only cancelled the bail to the celebrity accused and his accomplices but also upheld that no man is above the law.

“The judgment conveys a very strong message that whoever the accused may be, howsoever big or small the accused may be, he or she is not above the law. This judgment contains a very strong message that the justice delivery system at any level should ensure at any cost that the Rule of Law is maintained. No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man’s permission when we ask him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked a favor. The need of the hour is to maintain the rule of law at all times.”

The order further adds, “The day we come to know that the accused persons are provided with some special or five-star treatment within the jail premises, the first step in the process will be to place the jail superintendent under suspension including all other officials involved in such misconduct.”

Background

Accused Number 2 is the Kannada Movie star who along with others allegedly murdered the victim who had allegedly sent obscene messages to Accused Number 1, the partner of A2. To take revenge on the alleged acts of the victim, A1 & A2 accused to have planned and executed the acts of establishing the identity of the victim, abducting him and murdering him after physically torturing him in the most gruesome and heinous manner. The case is pending before the court and under trial. 

The accused had approached the LVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore (CCH-57) seeking bail by filing different Criminal Miscellaneous petitions, which were all dismissed. Upon rejection of the bail petitions, the accused approached the High Court by filing Criminal Petitions under section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. A2 also sought interim bail on medical grounds, which was granted on 15.10.2024 for six weeks based on the medical report submitted by the prison authorities. Ultimately the High Court allowed the criminal petitions and enlarged the accused on bail by the order dated 13.12.2024. The State preferred the said order for the appeals under different applications CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 3528 – 3534 OF 2025 (Arising from SLP (Crl.) Nos. 516 – 522 of 2025) at the Supreme Court. 

Supreme Court’s Judgment

All these appeals are allowed. The order dated 13.12.2024 passed by the High Court is set aside. The bail granted to the respondents / accused persons is hereby cancelled. The concerned authorities are directed to take the accused into custody forthwith. Given the gravity of the offence, the trial shall be conducted expeditiously, and a judgment rendered on merits, in accordance with law. It is made clear that the observations made herein are strictly confined to the issue of bail and shall not influence the trial on merits.

Reasoning given by the Apex Court

(a) Nature and Gravity of the offence

The accused along with the co-accused, is charged under Sections 120B, 302, 201 and 204 IPC, which relate to conspiracy, murder, destruction of evidence, and causing disappearance of evidence. The allegation is of a brutal and custodial murder of a young man, who was allegedly kidnapped, tortured, and beaten to death by the accused for sending objectionable messages to A2. The victim was a 26-year-old daily wage earner, and the crime was allegedly committed to protect the reputation of A1, the partner of A2, a celebrity. This is not a case of sudden provocation or emotional outburst. The evidence indicates a pre-meditated and orchestrated crime, where the accused not only allegedly took the law into his own hands, but also engaged in systematic destruction of evidence, including: deleting CCTV footage, bribing co-accused to falsely surrender, and using police and local influence to derail the investigation.

(b) Likelihood of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses

The record reveals concrete acts of interference with the investigation including: 

• A2’s role in orchestrating false surrenders by co-accused (A10, A14); 
• Payments made to cover up the crime (as per co-accused statements); 
• Connections with police officials who delayed and diluted the FIR and postmortem procedures; 
• Deletion of CCTV evidence from A1’s residence; 
• Continued influence over prosecution witnesses, as seen from public appearances after bail.

(c) Bail obtained on misrepresentation of medical grounds

The bail order dated 13.12.2024 passed by the High Court, was granted primarily on the basis of the alleged urgent medical condition of the A2. However, a bare perusal of the medical records and subsequent conduct of the accused reveals that the medical plea was misleading, vague, and grossly exaggerated. 

The discharge summary dated 28.11.2024 issued by the hospital, mentions that A2 is a patient with a history of diabetes, hypertension, and prior cardiac issues, and that he may require a CABG surgery in the future. However, the report does not indicate: any current emergency or need for immediate medical intervention; any life-threatening condition warranting urgent release; and any inability of the prison medical system to manage his current state. Thus, there is no compelling medical necessity for grant of bail. 

Contrary to the impression created before the High Court, A2 has made multiple public appearances, including participation in high-profile social events, was seen in fine health and mobility, and did not undergo any surgery or serious medical procedure post-release. This establishes that he abused the liberty of bail, which was obtained on a false and misleading premise. 

In this case, A2 failed to demonstrate that the jail hospital was incapable of managing his condition or that adequate treatment could not be given in judicial custody. Instead, the High Court proceeded to grant bail without recording a definitive finding on the urgency, seriousness, or inadequacy of treatment in custody.

(d) Non-consideration of material facts by the High Court

In the present case, the High Court failed to properly evaluate the nature of allegations, involving premeditated murder and conspiracy, attracting Section 302 IPC read with section 120B IPC; the chain of circumstantial evidence, including CCTV footage, call records, and the forensic report showing deliberate attempt to destroy evidence (e.g., disposal of blood-stained clothes and vehicle cleaning); and the incriminating role of A2, who was in constant touch with A1 and other co-accused before and after the incident, and who facilitated the conspiracy and cover-up. On the other hand, it simply recorded that A2 had “no direct role” and there was “no prima facie case”, without discussing or analysing the incriminating material on record. This amounts to non-application of mind, and renders the order unsustainable in law.

The High Court, while granting bail, recorded that A2 was not present at the crime scene, but at the same time, accepted that he was in telephonic contact with other accused at crucial times. Similarly, it noted that there was no strong motive, while also acknowledging post hostility and prior enmity with the deceased. These contradictory findings neutralize the basis for bail and indicate that the order was passed without a coherent or legally consistent rationale.

Key point reiterated by the Apex Court

The Constitution of India enshrines equality before law under Article 14, and mandates that no individual – however wealthy, influential, or famous – can claim exemption from the rigours of law. A celebrity status does not elevate an accused above the law, nor entitle him to preferential treatment in matters like grant of bail.

Read the complete judgement here.