The Karnataka High Court has directed prison authorities to re-transfer one of the men accused in the Renukaswamy murder case, in which Kannada actor Darshan Thoogudeepa Srinivas is also implicated, back to the Central Prison in Bengaluru from the Belagavi Central Prison [Pradosh S Rao vs. State of Karnataka & Others].

A single-judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed a petition filed by the accused man, Pradosh S Rao and set aside the earlier order of the magistrate court permitting his transfer to Belagavi Central Prison.

The murder case concerns allegations that a man named Renukaswamy died from injuries sustained in an attack carried out on Darshan Thogudeepa's instructions, after the former made derogatory comments against the actor's girlfriend Pavithra Gowda (also an accused) on social media. Darshan and others accused in the case are presently in jail.

Recently, photographs surfaced in the media showing Darshan, in the company of a notorious convict, Wilsongarden Naga, casually sipping tea and smoking a cigarette inside prison premises.

This media exposure created public uproar, leading jail authorities to submit a requisition to the magistrate, seeking the transfer of multiple accused, including Pradosh Rao, to different prisons across Karnataka.

The State authorities justified the transfers by claiming that the media coverage depicting Darshan with Wilsongarden Naga could undermine public confidence in the justice system and demoralize witnesses.

The magistrate, accepting this reasoning, ordered the transfer of Rao to Belagavi Central Prison, along with other accused individuals.

Rao challenged this decision, arguing that the transfer order was issued without any evidence linking him to the alleged illegal activities inside the prison. He contended that he was housed in a separate cell, far from Darshan and others involved in the controversy, and had no knowledge or involvement in their activities.

He also highlighted the harsh conditions he faced after his transfer. His wife, during a visit, revealed that he had been confined to an Andheri Cell, spending 15 hours a day in darkness and being forced to sit under constant surveillance for eight hours. Rao contended that this treatment amounted to psychological torture.

Upon hearing the arguments, the High Court took strong exception to the act of housing Rao in a dark prison cell.

“The learned State Public Prosecutor seeks to defend the action by submitting that the name of the Cell is Andheri. ….The submission to say the least, is preposterous, as the pictures where the petitioner is housed show it to be No.12. Therefore, the lurking doubt of the wife who visited the petitioner appears to be correct, that he was placed in an Andheri Cell. 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

The Court further observed that the transfer of under-trial prisoners cannot be done arbitrarily at the whim and fancy of the prosecution. It must be based on concrete reasons and supported by judicial application of mind.

"The petitioner is still an under-trial prisoner. Placing an under-trial prisoner in an Andheri Cell is unknown to law, unless grave circumstance ensue. Shifting of under-trial prisoners cannot be at the whim and fancy of the prosecution and such orders when sought, the learned Magistrates ought to apply their mind," the Court said.

The Court added that if any transfer had to occur, it should have involved Darshan, as he was the one seen casually sipping coffee and smoking a cigarette. The Court questioned why Pradosh Rao, who was housed in a separate cell, was being penalized for the actions of Darshan.

"If shifting had to be at all done, it could be shifting of accused No.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 No.2. 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 a cogent reason, and such orders of shifting must bear application of mind," the Court remarked.

The Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Maharashtra v. Saeed Sohail Sheikh, which held that the transfer of under-trial prisoners is a quasi-judicial act requiring due process and a fair hearing.

"The unmistakable inference that can be drawn from what the Apex Court has elucidated and such elucidation being pitted to the facts of the case, is unsustainability of the order of shifting of the petitioner/accused No.14 from Bangalore, Central Prison to Belagavi, Central Prison, as it is done without any basis as there was no allegation against the petitioner that he had indulged in certain acts making himself the reason for such transfer, and is in violation of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of SAEED SOHAIL," the Court observed.

The Court concluded that the magistrate had failed to properly apply his mind before issuing the transfer order.

"The impugned order is undoubtedly passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, the under-trial prisoner, to file his objections, if any, nor does the order impugned bear even a semblance of application of mind," the Court added.

In light of these findings, the Court quashed the magistrate’s order August 27 order and directed the immediate re-transfer of Pradosh Rao from Belagavi Central Prison back to the Central Prison in Bengaluru.

Advocates Hitesh Gowda BJ, Aditya D, and Santosh V appeared for Pradosh Rao, while Special Public Prosecutor BA Belliappa and Additional Special Public Prosecutor BN Jagadeesha represented the respondent authorities.

[Read order]