Karnataka High Court directs prison authorities to shift Pradosh, co-accused in murder case against actor Darshan, back to Bengaluru central prison

Observing that shifting of under-trial prisoners cannot be at the whims and fancies of the prosecution, the High Court of Karnataka has directed prison authorities to shift Pradosh S. Rao, 40, an accused in the murder case against actor Darshan, back to the Bengaluru central prison.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order while allowing a petition filed by Pradosh, who is arraigned as accused number 14 in the Renukaswamy murder case, in which Darshan has been arraigned as accused number 2.

At Belagavi prison

Pradosh was shifted to the Belagavi prison on August 28 based on an order by a metropolitan magistrate court in Bengaluru on August 27, after a photograph showed Darshan, with a coffee mug and a cigarette, sitting with a rowdy-sheeter in an open area inside the Bengaluru prison.

After taking permission from the magistrate, the prison authorities had shifted all the accused involved in the Renukaswamy murder case to various other prisons across the State, citing that the leaked photograph would demoralise witnesses and would provide room for suspicion in the eyes of the public on differential treatment being given to Darshan.

Far away from Darshan

However, the court said that the “axe that needed to be fallen on Darshan has stretched to the petitioner [Pradosh] as well, though he was far away from Darshan”, and not seen in the leaked photograph.

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

Citing Supreme Court judgements on shifting of prisoners from the jurisdictional prisons, Justice Nagaprasanna said that shifting of prisoners is neither an administrative nor ministerial act, but it is either a judicial order or a quasi-judicial order; and hence the prisoner must be given an opportunity of being heard as shifting would undoubtedly cause prejudice to the prisoner. Also, the magistrates will have to apply mind before permitting shifting of prisoners, the court said.

Meanwhile, the High Court made it clear that this order would be limited to Pradosh.

‘Andheri cell allegation appears to be correct’

The doubt of Pradosh’s wife that he was placed in an andheri cell at Belagavi central prison, appears to be correct, said the High Court of Karnataka.

His wife had stated in an affidavit that her husband is housed in an andheri cell, a cell with darkness for 15 hours, and that he is made to sit in front of the camera for eight hours.

But the State Public Prosecutor, appearing for the prison authorities, denied the allegations and claimed that andheri is only the name of the cell.

However, the court found andheri referred in a prescription given to Pradosh by doctors in Belagavi prison.

“It is rather surprising that instead of a number given to the cell, name is given and it is andheri. The submission, to say the least, is preposterous... Therefore, the lurking doubt of the wife who visited the petitioner appears to be correct... The petitioner is still an under-trial prisoner. Placing an under-trial prisoner in an andheri cell is unknown to law, unless grave circumstances ensue,” the court observed.

Published - October 09, 2024 07:00 am IST