<p>Bengaluru: Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) P Prasanna Kumar filed a memo at a Bengaluru court claiming that the accused in the Renukaswamy murder case weren't cooperating and were deliberately delaying the trial. Kumar’s memo was filed on Friday before the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-57).</p><p>Renukaswamy’s mutilated body was found disposed of near a stormwater drain in Sumanahalli in West Bengaluru on June 9, 2024. On June 11, popular Kannada actor Darshan, his friend Pavithra Gowda and seven others were arrested. The police nabbed the others in the subsequent days and claimed that the motive behind the murder was Renukaswamy’s lewd messages to Pavithra.</p><p>In his memo, seen by DH, the SPP said that Pavithra (accused 1), on August 23, 2025, filed a frivolous application seeking default bail, instead of making a submission when the matter was listed for hearing before charge, where the court would formally decide whether to frame charges against the accused. On August 30, the prosecution filed an objection.</p><p>The SPP stated that Darshan (accused 2) filed an application seeking certain facilities in the prison. Prison officials submitted a report stating that he had facilities in accordance with the Karnataka Prison Manual, 2021.</p><p>As per the memo, Darshan, instead of making his submissions on the charge, sought an explanation and made reference to the High Court for initiating contempt against jail officials on September 15, 2025, and filed another application on October 9, 2025, seeking a local inquiry by the sessions court to check if he was provided facilities as per the jail manual. </p>.Bengaluru doctor murder: We are collecting evidence to build strong chargesheet, says Police Commissioner.<p>The court on October 10 directed the Member Secretary, District Legal Service Authority, to visit the jail and submit a report. The secretary submitted a report on October 17 that “clearly indicates that all the claims made by the accused in the said application alleging non-providing of facilities by the prison officials were false”.</p><p>It is pertinent to note that on August 14, 2025, the Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted by the Karnataka High Court to Darshan, Pavithra and others and allowed the prosecution’s special leave petition.</p><p>The Apex Court, while cancelling the bail, had observed: “Given the gravity of the offence, the trial shall be conducted expeditiously, and a judgment rendered on merits, in accordance with law.”</p><p>“It is humbly submitted that though the prosecution has been ready and willing to go ahead with the matter, the accused, by employing delaying tactics, started filing applications seeking discharge one after the other. The above-narrated facts and the events that have taken place from August 14, 2025, clearly indicate that none of the accused are cooperating in the early conclusion of the trial,” the memo claimed, adding that the court should proceed with the trial expeditiously.</p>
<p>Bengaluru: Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) P Prasanna Kumar filed a memo at a Bengaluru court claiming that the accused in the Renukaswamy murder case weren't cooperating and were deliberately delaying the trial. Kumar’s memo was filed on Friday before the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-57).</p><p>Renukaswamy’s mutilated body was found disposed of near a stormwater drain in Sumanahalli in West Bengaluru on June 9, 2024. On June 11, popular Kannada actor Darshan, his friend Pavithra Gowda and seven others were arrested. The police nabbed the others in the subsequent days and claimed that the motive behind the murder was Renukaswamy’s lewd messages to Pavithra.</p><p>In his memo, seen by DH, the SPP said that Pavithra (accused 1), on August 23, 2025, filed a frivolous application seeking default bail, instead of making a submission when the matter was listed for hearing before charge, where the court would formally decide whether to frame charges against the accused. On August 30, the prosecution filed an objection.</p><p>The SPP stated that Darshan (accused 2) filed an application seeking certain facilities in the prison. Prison officials submitted a report stating that he had facilities in accordance with the Karnataka Prison Manual, 2021.</p><p>As per the memo, Darshan, instead of making his submissions on the charge, sought an explanation and made reference to the High Court for initiating contempt against jail officials on September 15, 2025, and filed another application on October 9, 2025, seeking a local inquiry by the sessions court to check if he was provided facilities as per the jail manual. </p>.Bengaluru doctor murder: We are collecting evidence to build strong chargesheet, says Police Commissioner.<p>The court on October 10 directed the Member Secretary, District Legal Service Authority, to visit the jail and submit a report. The secretary submitted a report on October 17 that “clearly indicates that all the claims made by the accused in the said application alleging non-providing of facilities by the prison officials were false”.</p><p>It is pertinent to note that on August 14, 2025, the Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted by the Karnataka High Court to Darshan, Pavithra and others and allowed the prosecution’s special leave petition.</p><p>The Apex Court, while cancelling the bail, had observed: “Given the gravity of the offence, the trial shall be conducted expeditiously, and a judgment rendered on merits, in accordance with law.”</p><p>“It is humbly submitted that though the prosecution has been ready and willing to go ahead with the matter, the accused, by employing delaying tactics, started filing applications seeking discharge one after the other. The above-narrated facts and the events that have taken place from August 14, 2025, clearly indicate that none of the accused are cooperating in the early conclusion of the trial,” the memo claimed, adding that the court should proceed with the trial expeditiously.</p>