Actor Darshan's Medical Certificates Don't Show Any Health Complication Preventing Surgery: Karnataka HC Observes Orally During Bail Hearing

The Karnataka High Court on Thursday orally observed that medical certificates produced by Kannada actor Darshan Thoogudeepa Srinivas, who was granted interim bail on October 30 in the Renukaswamy Murder case to undergo spinal surgery, do not reflect any medical complications preventing him from undergoing the surgery.

A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty, who had earlier granted six weeks interim bail to the actor, was hearing his regular bail plea.

When the bench queried from the actor's counsel about the status of his treatment, Senior Advocate C V Nagesh responded that "there is total variation in his blood pressure", preventing the surgery. He submitted that ultimately, it is for the doctors to decide and he is not in a position to make a statement as to when the surgery will be conducted.

This prompted the bench to remark, “Whatever certificates you have produced till date they don't say that there is any difficulty because of his health conditions for surgery.”

Darshan's interim bail will expire in second week of December. Arguing for regular bail, his counsel picked holes in the eyewitnesses' testimonies. He further pointed that the witness was known to the Police since the alleged date of incident, June 9. However, his statement came to be recorded only on June 20. He contended that the Prosecution has to come out with an "acceptable and good explanation" about this delay.

He cited precedents from various High Courts as well as the Supreme Court to argue that delay in recording of witness statements can be ground for grant of bail.

Darshan and 16 others have been charged for offences punishable under Section 120B, (Conspiracy), 201 (destruction of evidence), 364 (Abduction/kidnapping), 302 (murder) and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Nagesh contended that details of witnesses were not mentioned in the remand application. He submitted that such exception of not disclosing witness identity is only permissible under the National Investigating Agencies Act, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act but, not when offences are alleged under the IPC.

The bench also heard Senior Advocate Sandesh S Chouta appearing for accused no. 11—R Nagaraju. He contended that grounds of arrest, as mandated by the Apex Court in cases of DK Basu and Arnesh Kumar, were not provided to him at the time of arrest. Chouta submitted, “No grounds of arrest were given at the time of the accused being produced before the magistrate court while seeking police custody or judicial custody. In the entire remand applications there is no whisper of grounds of arrest.”

The Court will continue further hearing in the matter tomorrow.

Case Title: Darshan v. State of Karnataka

Case No: CRL.P 11096/2024