Skip to main content
Video
1/3
crime

Accused Darshan’s Jail Facilities Petition Hearing Today; The SPP strongly opposed Darshan’s petition seeking additional facilities.

By Gireesh Vasishta
Accused Darshan’s Jail Facilities Petition Hearing Today; The SPP strongly opposed Darshan’s petition seeking additional facilities.

Court Questions Compliance: Justice I.P. Naik inquired, "Are you complying with the court’s orders?" (Directed at Jail Superintendent Suresh).Superintendent Suresh's Response: "We are complying with the court’s orders." "All facilities as per the jail manual are being provided. Asking for a cot doesn’t mean we can provide a cot – there is no provision for that," stated the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP).

Bengaluru: The hearing on actor Darshan’s petition for additional facilities in jail, related to the Chitradurga Renuka Swamy murder case, is scheduled for today in court. Key highlights from the proceedings are as follows:

  • Jail Superintendent Submits Report: The court received a sealed report from the jail superintendent, providing clarification on the allegations, submitted to the 64th City Civil and Sessions Court.

  • Court Questions Compliance: Justice I.P. Naik inquired, "Are you complying with the court’s orders?" (Directed at Jail Superintendent Suresh).Superintendent Suresh's Response: "We are complying with the court’s orders."

  • SPP Prasanna Kumar's Arguments:

    • "All facilities as per the jail manual are being provided. Asking for a cot doesn’t mean we can provide a cot – there is no provision for that," stated the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP).

    • "Prisoners have no right to demand 'place me here' or 'place me there.' They cannot demand to be kept in a specific barrack. In jail, not all fundamental rights are available. One cannot demand to be placed in a barrack with sunlight access, saying 'we don’t get sunlight here.'"Also Read: ‘Croose’ vs ‘Crocs’: Popular Footwear Brand ‘Crocs’ Wins Court Battle – Here’s Why

    The SPP strongly opposed Darshan’s petition seeking additional facilities.

  • Defense Lawyer Sunil Kumar Begins Arguments:

    • "The court’s order to provide facilities has not been complied with. The jail authorities have not understood the English language of the court’s order."

    SPP's Strong Objection: The SPP vehemently objected to the language argument. The judge instructed, "Present arguments on the relevant facts before the court." (Directed at lawyer Sunil Kumar).

    SPP's Counter: "Let them specify which directives have been violated. How can we just provide a cot if they ask for it?"Sunil's Rejoinder: "Have we asked for a cot or a bed? No."

  • Defense Seeks Jail Records: Darshan’s lawyer filed a petition requesting:

    • Details of which prisoners have been placed in quarantine.

    • Information on what facilities have been provided to them.

    • All records, including CCTV footage, to be submitted to the court.

  • Facilities Provided, as per Authorities:

    • Chappals, bedsheets, blankets, and mugs have been given. A blanket was provided after the court’s order.

    • Walking time: One hour in the morning and one hour in the evening.

    • Separate registers are maintained for lawyers visiting accused Darshan. The defense questioned: "Do they maintain separate registers for all accused in the same manner?"

  • SPP's Retort: "What exactly has not been provided? Just tell us what needs to be given."

  • Judge's Question to Sunil: "Just specify what facilities have not been provided."

The arguments and counter-arguments continue, with the hearing ongoing.