Kannada actor Darshan, an accused in the high-profile Renukaswamy murder case, has approached the Karnataka High Court challenging a trial court order that rejected his request to be physically produced during the trial.
Darshan and three other accused had sought physical production before the trial court under Section 309 read with Section 273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). On August 17, the trial court rejected their applications and directed that they could appear through video conferencing (VC), according to Live Law.
Darshan has now challenged this order before the High Court.
Darshan’s lawyers had argued before the trial court that the VC facility was frequently disrupted by connectivity and other technical problems. They also pointed to the volume of material in the case, arguing that Darshan needed to meet his lawyers extensively during the trial.
The defence contended that the right to a fair trial includes the accused’s ability to have continuous and meaningful consultations with their lawyers, particularly in a case involving voluminous records.
The prosecution has listed around 272 witnesses in the chargesheet, of whom around 150 are expected to be examined during the trial.
The State, however, opposed physical production, arguing that Section 508 read with Section 530 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) permits evidence to be recorded through audio-video electronic means. It also argued that Darshan had not demonstrated any prejudice or denial of a fair opportunity because he was appearing through VC.
The trial court, while rejecting the request, said arrangements were being made to facilitate meetings between the accused and their lawyers. It also noted the logistical difficulties involved in physically producing the accused on every hearing date.
“The physical production of the accused on every hearing date would require substantial deployment of police personnel and logistical coordination,” the court said, adding that this could create a “mob-like situation” in the courtroom and affect the administration of justice.
The court also observed that there had been no persistent technical failure with the VC facility so far. It directed the registry to ensure that adequate and competent technical personnel were available to keep the facility functional.
The order was passed in relation to accused numbers 2 (Darshan), 6 (Jagadish), 7 (Anukumar), and 11 (Nagaraju).
Darshan has now moved the Karnataka High Court challenging the trial court’s decision and seeking physical production during the proceedings.