Can't Shift Undertrials From One Prison To Another At Whims And Fancies Of Prosecution: Karnataka HC In Murder Case Involving Actor Darshan

The Karnataka High Court has directed the prison authorities to re-shift one of the accused involved in the Renukaswamy murder case in which Kannada actor Darshan Thoogdeep Srinivas is also an accused, to the Central Prison, Bengaluru from Belagavi Central Prison.

Accused Darshan was recently spotted sitting along with other prisoners inside the prison and sipping coffee and smoking. His photographs went viral on social media. Following which a requisition came to be made before the Magistrate for shifting all the accused involved in the case.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Pradosh S Rao who is accused no. 14 in the case and set aside the order of the Magistrate court permitting his transfer.

The court said “Shifting of under-trial prisoners cannot be at the whim and fancy of the prosecution and such orders when sought, the learned Magistrates ought to apply their mind.”

The Magistrate court in its order dated 28-08-2024, allowing the requisition had noted that there is a media publication in respect of Darshan having tea with a rowdy Wilsongarden Naga. Therefore, it causes influence over the witnesses in the present case.

The petitioner, who was not seen in the picture and was lodged inside a separate cell was also transferred. It was argued that what was happening in the prison qua Darshan was not within the knowledge of the petitioner. The Magistrate without application of mind has transferred the petitioner to a different jail.

Further, when the wife of the petitioner went to meet him, it was revealed that he was housed in an Andheri Cell, a cell with darkness for 15 hours and is made to sit in front of the camera for 8 hours, on the score that he is under observation. The same was refuted by the prison authorities.

"The petitioner is still an under-trial prisoner. Placing an under-trial prisoner in an Andheri Cell is unknown to law, unless grave circumstance ensue," the Court remarked.

The prosecution justified its action contending that it was necessary to send a message to the Society that the accused are not being given differential or separate treatment and are treated like any other prisoner.

The bench on going through the records said, “If shifting had to be at all done, it could be shifting of accused No.2, Darshan, as he who was in the scene, in the company of others, with a coffee sipping and cigarette. The petitioner who is away in some cell is penalised for the act of accused No.2.”

It added “It is not that the prisoner can choose prison. Once he is housed in a jurisdictional prison, as an under-trial, to shift him to any other prison there must be a cogent reason, and such orders of shifting must bear application of mind.”

Relying on the Apex Court judgment in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Saeed Sohail Sheikh reported in (2012) 13 SCC 192, the court said, “The impugned order is undoubtedly passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, the under-trial prisoner to file his objections, if any, nor the order impugned does bear even a semblance of application of mind.”

Thus it held, “There was no independent reason to shift the petitioner particularly to an Andheri Cell, as is alleged and the allegations somewhat appear to be correct. It has, therefore, undoubtedly affected the right of the under-trial prisoner and requires it to be reversed.”

Accordingly, it allowed the petition.

Appearance: Advocate Hitesh Gowda B J a/w Advocates Aditya D, Santosh V for Petitioner. SPP B A Belliappa a/w Additional SPP B N Jagadeesha for Respondents

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 433

Case Title: Pradosh S Rao AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 23848 OF 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order