Bengaluru court to hear bail plea of Darshan today

The court on Wednesday adjourned the hearing of Kannada superstar Darshan Thoogudeepa Srinivas’s bail plea, who is jailed in connection with the murder of Renukaswamy

The court on Wednesday adjourned the hearing of Kannada actor Darshan Thoogudeepa Srinivas’s bail plea, who is jailed in connection with the murder of Renukaswamy, to Thursday.

The court session, presided over by judge Jaishankar, had attorneys representing the other accused presenting their arguments, although Darshan’s legal team did not make submissions during this session (ANI)

During the hearing, special public prosecutor (SPP) Prasanna Kumar presented arguments opposing the plea, highlighting police mishandling the investigation of the case.

He countered the defence’s arguments that the charges against Darshan were exaggerated, equating them to fictional tales.

In defence of the 11th and 12th accused - Dhanraj D, and Vinay V, senior counsel Sandeep Chowta argued that the case had been sensationalised, not because of the crime itself, but due to the involvement of high-profile individuals, including Darshan.

“He claimed that undue attention had been given to minor details, such as the provision of home-cooked food to the accused, adding that actions against the prisoners were biased, particularly after photos of Darshan inside the prison went viral,” said a court official familiar with the development.

One of the key contentions by the prosecution was that Darshan’s associates were in touch with Renukaswamy before the murder. Citing chat records, Kumar said that the accused had exchanged messages and photos with Renukaswamy, undermining the defense’s argument that the victim was unknown to them.

Regarding the delay in recording eyewitness accounts, Kumar defended the police, stating that the brutality of the crime required careful investigation, and eyewitnesses’ statements were crucial to building the case.

The case pertains to the abduction and murder of Renukaswamy, who was allegedly kidnapped from Chitradurga, confined in a shed at Pattanagere, and brutally assaulted. His body was later found in a drain at Sumanahalli.

Seventeen people, including Darshan and his partner Pavithra Gowda, were arrested on June 11 in connection with the case.

The charge sheet, comprising 3,991 pages, was submitted to the 24th additional chief metropolitan magistrate’s court on September 4.

It details how Darshan and his associates allegedly assaulted Renukaswamy, leading to his death. The charge sheet also stated that Renukaswamy had used a fake Instagram account under the name of Gowtham to communicate with Pavithra Gowda.

In a related development, the Karnataka high court directed that Pradosh S Rao, an accused in the Renukaswamy murder case, be transferred back to Bengaluru’s Central Prison from Belagavi Central Prison. The court ruled that his earlier transfer was unjustified.

The case gained additional attention after photos of Darshan smoking and drinking coffee with inmates inside the prison surfaced online.

Following the viral images, a request was made to transfer all accused to different facilities, citing concerns over witness influence due to Darshan’s interactions with a notorious inmate, Wilsongarden Naga.

Rao, however, had no involvement in the viral incident, and his legal representatives argued that he was unfairly included in the transfer order. He had been placed in a separate cell and had no knowledge of the activities involving Darshan.

His defence further highlighted that upon transfer, Rao was held in an “Andheri Cell”—a facility that keeps prisoners in darkness for long hours—without any valid reason. Prison authorities denied these claims, but the conditions under which he was housed became a central issue in the court proceedings.

Justice M Nagaprasanna, reviewing the case, criticised the Magistrate’s court for transferring Rao without due consideration, stating that under-trial prisoners cannot be moved at the whim of the prosecution.

“Decisions regarding the transfer of prisoners should be backed by clear reasoning,” the judge remarked, adding that the court’s order lacked sufficient justification.

The HC further observed that while Darshan’s behaviour might have warranted action, punishing an unrelated prisoner for another’s misconduct was improper.

“If anyone was to be shifted, it should have been Darshan, as the photos show him in the company of others,” the bench noted.