Bengaluru, Sep 30 (NationPress) In response to the petition lodged by incarcerated actor Darshan concerning inadequate jail conditions, Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Prasanna Kumar argued before the court on Tuesday that prison officials are not obligated to furnish Darshan with a luxury bed within the facility.

After Darshan claimed to the court on September 25 that the prison authorities had not fulfilled their obligations despite a court directive, the 57th Sessions Court summoned the Superintendent of Bengaluru Central Prison. The court proceedings regarding Darshan's petition are ongoing.

SPP Prasanna Kumar presented documentation that outlined the amenities provided to Darshan in accordance with the court's ruling and the prison manual. In strong opposition, Darshan's lawyer Sunil contended that his client had not requested an extravagant cot. “All he has received is a tumbler, a glass, and a mat. The prison authorities clearly have not comprehended the court's instructions,” he stated.

“The authorities have disregarded the court's directive. It appears they struggle with the English language,” Sunil remarked in court.

SPP Prasanna Kumar objected to this comment, asserting that it was inappropriate to suggest that officials do not understand English. “Discussions should be conducted with the decorum and respect that the court demands,” he stated. The court then instructed Sunil to maintain a more respectful tone and to specifically cite which directives had been overlooked, rather than making broad accusations.

Sunil continued, “Earlier, a carpet and blanket were provided. A thick blanket was only supplied following the court's ruling. While Darshan is permitted to walk in the barrack for 30 minutes, he is barred from outdoor walks.”

He also criticized the management of a separate log for Darshan's visitors. However, the court noted that prison officials must ensure the safety of accused individuals and are entitled to implement necessary measures. “The court will not interfere in law and order matters, as that is the police's responsibility,” it emphasized.

Sunil further claimed that Darshan was being held in a quarantine cell, despite the absence of other inmates in similar conditions. “Darshan is confined in a cell typically reserved for terrorists. The authorities justify these measures solely because he is a celebrity,” he asserted.

At this juncture, SPP Prasanna Kumar remarked, “If they request a golden cot, it cannot be granted.” Sunil rebutted that his client had never made such a demand. He also argued that the central government’s jail manual was not being adhered to. “It specifies that inmates should receive adequate food, bedding, fresh air, and water. It also outlines the placement of prisoners within the facility. Jail inmates should maintain some connection to the outside world,” Sunil contended.

“When court orders are ignored, it is disheartening. Convicted rapist Umesh Reddy has been granted the privilege of a color television, yet Darshan is denied similar amenities. Why is Darshan not afforded the same facilities that have been provided to a rapist?” Sunil questioned, alleging discrimination in the treatment of his client.

“The SPP must advocate for justice. The Supreme Court has ruled that he cannot simply align with the police,” Sunil added.

SPP Prasanna Kumar, countering these statements, requested that the advocate specify precisely which facilities had been denied and which ones ought to be provided. Justifying the decision to house Darshan in a quarantine cell, he highlighted that the term “quarantine” appears 11 times in the regulations. In response, Sunil challenged that if the handbook indeed included the term, he would withdraw his application.

SPP Prasanna Kumar maintained that there is provision for Darshan to be kept in a quarantine cell, as it is a component of the prison's protocol. “He can be housed anywhere within the facility. The actions taken are beneficial for jail management. Darshan is an undertrial inmate. According to the Karnataka Prison Rules, prisoners fall into two categories: special and general. Cells are assigned based on each prisoner's security risks,” he explained.

The horrific murder of Darshan's fan, Renukaswamy, occurred on June 8 in Bengaluru. Renukaswamy was abducted from his hometown, Chitradurga, transported to Bengaluru, and tortured to death in a shed.

After the murder, his remains were discarded in a canal. The incident was uncovered when security personnel at a private apartment complex discovered the body being dragged by a pack of dogs.

The police have submitted a 3,991-page chargesheet against Darshan, his partner Pavithra Gowda, and 15 others in the case. The Supreme Court recently revoked their bail and chastised the prison officials, instructing them to ensure that Darshan is not granted any facilities that contravene the regulations.