Darshan surgery date not decided yet due to BP fluctuation, Karnataka High Court told

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court was informed on Thursday that the proposed surgery upon actor Darshan Toogudeep Srinivas, accused in the Renukaswamy murder case, is not decided yet in view of variation in his blood pressure.

Senior advocate CV Nagesh clarified this to the court while advancing his arguments on behalf of the actor in the bail petition. Justice S Vishwajith Shetty has adjourned further hearing to Friday.

Darshan is on an interim bail for six weeks to enable him to undergo surgery for the back pain. At the hearing, the court asked the advocate about the surgery upon the actor. The advocate said there has been variation in the actor’s blood pressure and that he is being again subjected to an MRI scan. He further said that it is for the doctors to decide on the surgery based on the condition of the patient.

Meanwhile, resuming his submissions on the bail petition, Nagesh cited several statements recorded by the police under CrPC section 164 to claim that they do not prima facie incriminate Darshan. He further said that Darshan entitles for the grant of bail since Deepak Kumar, one of the assailants as per the prosecution, is already released on bail. Deepak Kumar was reportedly using the shed, the place of crime in Pattanagere, for his business.

The advocate further claimed that there are several discrepancies in the statements recorded by the police and said as per the prosecution an accused had changed the pants and shirt at the scene of crime. He said as per one of the witnesses, Darshan had asked his friends to give food to Renukaswamy, to take his picture and also to take him to the police station. “If I (Darshan) really wanted to kill him, why would I have asked to give him food, take his picture, take him to the police station,” Nagesh said.

Senior advocate Sandesh Chouta, appearing for Nagaraju, accused number 11 in the case, submitted that grounds of arrest were not shown, though it is a mandatory requirement. When this was pointed out during the hearing on bail petitions before the trial court, the prosecution came up with documents showing the grounds of arrest. These grounds of arrest shown at the time of hearing on bail petition were cyclostyled one and not personal to each accused, which again is contrary to the procedure, Sandesh Chouta said.