Bengaluru, Sep 30 (IANS) Objecting to the petition filed by jailed actor Darshan regarding poor jail facilities, Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Prasanna Kumar submitted to the court on Tuesday that prison authorities cannot provide a luxury bed inside the jail to Darshan.

Following Darshan’s statement to the court on September 25 that prison authorities had failed to provide facilities even after a court order, the 57th Sessions Court summoned the Superintendent of Bengaluru Central Prison. The arguments and counter-arguments are progressing in the court over Darshan’s petition.

SPP Prasanna Kumar submitted documents containing details of the facilities provided to Darshan as per the court’s order and the jail manual. Strongly opposing this, Darshan’s advocate Sunil argued that his client had not demanded a golden cot. “They have only given him a tumbler, a glass, and a mat. The prison authorities have not understood the court’s directions,” he said.

“The authorities have thrown away the court order. It seems they are not able to understand English language,” Sunil told the court.

SPP Prasanna Kumar objected to the remark, stating that it was inappropriate to argue that officers do not understand English. “Arguments should be made in keeping with the decorum and dignity of the court,” he said. The court then asked advocate Sunil to adopt a softer tone and to specifically point out which order had not been followed, instead of making general allegations.

Advocate Sunil further stated, “The carpet and blanket were provided earlier. A thick blanket was given only after the court order. Darshan is allowed to walk inside the barrack for 30 minutes, but he is not allowed to go for walks outside.”

He also objected to the maintenance of a separate register for Darshan’s visitors. The court, however, observed that prison authorities must ensure the safety of accused persons, and for that reason they can take appropriate measures. “The court will not interfere in matters of law and order, as maintaining law and order is the responsibility of the police,” it underlined.

Sunil further argued that Darshan was being kept in a quarantine cell, although no other inmates were confined in this manner. “Darshan is kept in the same type of cell that is reserved for terrorists. Authorities claim these steps are being taken only because he is a celebrity,” he said.

At this stage, SPP Prasanna Kumar remarked, “If they ask for a golden cot, it cannot be provided.” Advocate Sunil countered that his client had never made such a demand. He also contended that the Central government’s jail manual was not being followed. “It clearly specifies that inmates should be given proper food, bedding, fresh air, and water. It also contains provisions about the placement of prisoners within the premises. Jail inmates should have some connection with the outside world,” Sunil argued.

“When court orders are not followed, it is painful. Convicted rapist Umesh Reddy has been given the facility of a colour television, yet no such facility is provided to Darshan. Why can’t Darshan be given facilities that have already been extended to a rapist?” Sunil questioned, alleging bias in the treatment of his client.

“The SPP should stand on the side of justice. The Supreme Court has held that he cannot merely side with the police,” Sunil added.

SPP Prasanna Kumar, objecting to these remarks, asked the advocate to specify exactly which facilities had been denied and which ones should be provided. Defending the decision to keep Darshan in a quarantine cell, he pointed out that the word “quarantine” appears 11 times in the rule book. In response, Sunil challenged that if the rule book indeed contained the word, he would withdraw his application.

SPP Prasanna Kumar maintained that there is provision to keep Darshan in a quarantine cell, as it is part of the prison. “He can be kept anywhere inside the jail. The measures taken are conducive to jail administration. Darshan is an undertrial prisoner. As per the Karnataka Prison Rules, there are two categories of prisoners: special and general. Based on the security risks of each prisoner, cells are allotted,” he submitted.

The gruesome murder of Darshan’s fan, Renukaswamy, took place on June 8 in Bengaluru. Renukaswamy was kidnapped from his hometown, Chitradurga, brought to Bengaluru, kept in a shed, and tortured to death.

After the murder, his body was thrown into a canal. The incident came to light after the security personnel of a private apartment building saw the body being dragged by a pack of dogs.

The police had submitted a 3,991-page chargesheet against Darshan, his partner Pavithra Gowda and 15 others to the court in the case. The Supreme Court had recently cancelled their bail and reprimanded the prison authorities, directing them to ensure that no facilities are provided to Darshan in contravention of the rules.

–IANS

mka/rad