Actor Darshan Moves Karnataka High Court Against Order Refusing Physical Production In Renukaswamy Murder Trial

Kannada actor Darshan, an accused in the high profile Renukaswamy Murder case, has approached the Karnataka High Court challenging a trial court order that refused his request for physical production during the trial, insisting instead that proceedings continue through video conferencing.

Previously, certain accused including Darshan and Nagaraju had filed an application under Section 309 read with Section 273 CrPC, seeking physical production before the trial court. The trial court had, on August 17, rejected the applications and directed that the accused may be permitted to appear through video conferencing.

Before the trial court, Darshan had argued that the VC facility was plagued by frequent interruptions and connectivity problems.

It was also argued that the voluminous case records required extensive meetings with the lawyers representing the actor, and the right to fair trial includes continuous and meaningful consultation between accused and counsel during trial

It is pertinent to note here that the prosecution has around 272 witnesses listed in the charge sheet, with around 150 witnesses who would be examined out of it.

However, the State argued that Section 508 BNSS r/w Section 530 BNSS permits recording evidence through audio-video electronic means. Moreover, no prejudice or denial of fair opportunity has been made out in the absence of physical production.

After hearing both parties, the trial court had ordered:

“…number of advocate meetings that an inmate can avail and adequate arrangements are being continuously made to facilitate interaction between the accused persons and their respective advocates…. The physical production of the accused on every hearing date would require substantial deployment of police personnel and logistical coordination thereby causing unnecessary burden upon the State machinery and affecting effective judicial administration owing to a mob like situation in Court Hall”.

Hence, the trial court, noting that there had been no persistent technical failure so far, rejected the application for physical production of accused Nos.2, 6, 7 & 11 including the Actor. The trial court, however, directed its registry  that adequate and competent technical personnel must be deputed to ensure VC facility remains functional.

Against this Darshan has moved the high court. 

Case Title: Darshan Srinivas v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Filing No. 28663/2026