The Karnataka High Court has suggested that the trial of actor Darshan Thoogudeepa in the Renukaswamy murder case could be held at the special court in Parappana Agrahara, or that he be produced physically only when key witnesses give evidence, citing potential security and traffic concerns in Bengaluru.
The suggestions were made on Thursday by Justice V Srishananda while hearing a petition filed by Darshan’s wife, Vijayalakshmi. The petition challenged the trial court’s decision to reject a request for the accused to be physically produced on every date of the trial instead of appearing through video conferencing.
Darshan is accused number two in the case. The trial court rejected the request on Aug. 17, while directing jail authorities to provide the accused with complete and unrestricted opportunities to consult and communicate confidentially with their advocates. The court said such consultations should not face unreasonable restrictions on their duration or frequency.
During the High Court hearing, Justice Srishananda noted that physically bringing Darshan to court on every hearing date could create security and traffic issues. The judge said there were only a handful of key witnesses and suggested that Darshan could be physically present when those witnesses were examined. The judge also indicated that the trial of the material witnesses could potentially be completed in a couple of days.
Another option suggested by the High Court was shifting the trial to the special court at Parappana Agrahara. The suggestion would place the proceedings closer to the prison facility where the accused is being held, although the court has not ordered that the trial be moved.
The High Court also proposed allowing Darshan’s counsel a 15-minute private conversation with him before proceedings begin. Justice Srishananda said a mobile phone belonging to one of the civil court registrars, equipped with video-calling and headphone facilities, could be made available to enable a confidential consultation.
The issue of video conferencing was central to the petition. Vijayalakshmi’s legal challenge argued that recurring technical and connectivity problems had prevented the accused from following proceedings effectively. In response to the earlier request, the trial court directed the city civil court registry to deputise technical personnel to ensure that the video-conferencing facility remained functional throughout the trial.
The registry was also directed to make arrangements for consultations between the advocates and the undertrial prisoners before, during and after the recording of evidence. These directions were intended to ensure that the accused could provide full and effective instructions to their lawyers while participating remotely.
The High Court has adjourned the matter to Sept. 16. The court will consider the competing arrangements for Darshan’s participation, including physical production during the examination of key witnesses, a possible shift to Parappana Agrahara, and continued participation through video conferencing with confidential legal consultations.
