Justice V. Srishananda passed the order while hearing a petition filed by Darshan, through his wife Vijayalakshmi, seeking direction to permit his physical appearance before the trial court housed in the city civil court complex in the city during the trial of the case instead of his appearance through videoconference from the central prison in Bengaluru.
‘May not be feasible’
Meanwhile, the High Court orally indicated that ensuring Darshan’s regular physical production before the trial court throughout the trial may not be feasible. It, therefore, suggested three alternatives; conducting the examination and cross-examination of key witnesses on the prison premises, where there is an exclusive facility to conduct proceedings; permitting the accused to interact privately and confidentially with his advocates through videoconferencing using the trial court’s official infrastructure before each hearing; or producing him physically before the trial court for three to four days, during which examination of important witnesses could be completed.At this juncture, SPP P. Prasanna Kumar told the court that he had already suggested before the trial court that the actor’s physical production could be permitted for a few days during examination/cross-examination of important witnesses.
While asking the SPP and senior advocate Hashmath Pasha, representing Darshan, to spell out the modalities which they want to adopt, the High Court adjourned further hearing on the petition till September 16.
The petition has questioned the August 17 order of the trial court, which had rejected the plea for his physical production before the trial court to enable his advocates to get effective instructions from him on trial claiming that his advocates were not getting sufficient time in prison to interact with him on the trial. He had also claimed that there were frequent interruptions and technical difficulties in video conferencing mode during the trial proceedings.
The trial court had said that production of the accused, including Darshan through video conferencing has not, so far, affected any of their substantive or procedural rights. However, the trial court had directed the prison authorities to allow his advocates to interact with him without any unreasonable restriction besides directing the court’s registry to ensure no hindrance in video conference facility in jail premises.