The Karnataka High Court.
Credit: DH File Photo
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has directed re-transfer of Pradosh S Rao, accused number 14 in the Renukaswamy murder case, to the central prison, Parappana Agrahara, Bengaluru. It was argued on behalf of Pradosh that he was not at all present in the photographs that appeared in the media wherein accused number 2 and actor Darshan was seen holding a mug and a cigarette sitting along with ‘Wilson Garden Naga’, a rowdy sheeter, at the central prison.
Justice M Nagaprasanna said that though a prisoner cannot choose the prison, once housed in a jurisdictional prison as an under-trial, to shift him to any other prison there must be a cogent reason and such orders of shifting must bear application of mind.
On August 27, 2024, an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru passed an order allowing the request placed by the Chief Superintendent (Prisons) for transferring all the under trial prisoners in the case to other prisons across the state, including the petitioner and actor Darshan. Accordingly, the petitioner was transferred to Belagavi Central prison and allegedly kept in a cell known as Andheri (dark) cell.
The High Court had passed an interim order on August 29 itself. However, since Pradosh was already transferred by then, the interim order did not have any effect. The court was informed that when the wife visited the petitioner at Belagavi prison, shocking revelations were made by her husband that he was housed in an Andheri Cell, a cell with darkness for 15 hours. He was made to sit in front of the camera for eight hours, on the score that he is under observation.
Though the State Public Prosecutor refuted these allegations, the court noted that the prescriptions indicate that the petitioner was indeed in an Andheri cell and the doubts expressed by the wife appeared correct. “Placing an under-trial prisoner in an Andheri Cell is unknown to law, unless grave circumstances ensue.
Shifting of under-trial prisoners cannot be at the whim and fancy of the prosecution and such orders when sought, the Magistrates ought to apply their mind. If shifting had to be at all done, it could be shifting of accused number 2, Darshan, as he who was in the scene, in the company of others, with a coffee sipping and cigarette. The petitioner who is away in some cell is penalized for the act of accused number 2,” Justice Nagaprasanna said.
The court cited the Apex Court judgment in Saeed Sohail case and said that the top court held that prior to the passing of such an order, the prisoner must be given an opportunity of being heard, as it would undoubtedly cause prejudice to the said prisoner.
“The axe that needed to be fallen on accused no 2 – Darshan, has stretched to the petitioner as well, though he was far away from the company of accused no 2. There was no independent reason to shift the petitioner particularly to an Andheri Cell, as is alleged, and the allegations somewhat appear to be correct. It has, therefore, undoubtedly affected the right of the under-trial prisoner and requires to be reversed,” the court said, while clarifying that that this order would not benefit any other accused in the crime and the observations made are applicable only to the case of the petitioner and not to any other accused.