BENGALURU: Actor Darshan, who is on interim bail on medical grounds in the Renukaswamy murder case, should surrender and return to prison, since he has misled court about his medical condition, Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) P Prasanna Kumar argued before the Karnataka High Court.
The actor had claimed he could suffer a stroke if he didn’t undergo surgery for back pain immediately, but after obtaining interim bail, did not get admitted for surgery, citing variation in blood pressure, though it can be brought under control within a day or two.
Even five weeks after he got interim bail on October 30, he failed to undergo surgery, the SPP submitted before Justice S Vishwajith Shetty, as a counter to arguments made by Darshan’s counsel on his bail application.
Referring to two medical reports submitted by Darshan, Prasanna Kumar submitted that there was mention of preparing the actor for surgery in the first report, dated November 11. In another report dated November 21, it was stated that he was being prepared for surgery, as blood pressure (BP) was fluctuating.
According to the chart provided with the medical reports, BP appears to be alright up to November 6, whereafter the doctor reported that BP was about 140, 150 and so on. If there is variation in BP, according to surgeons, a small tablet which costs Rs 2.22 is enough to bring it to normal within a day or two. In emergency cases, surgery is conducted without loss of time, he said.
Chances of stroke?
While seeking interim bail, it was stated that there was a chance of the accused getting a stroke if surgery was not performed immediately for his back pain, and bail was granted. But, even after five weeks of six weeks granted by court were completed, Darshan is still being prepared for surgery.
This clearly shows the accused has misled court. Considering his conduct, he will have to be asked to surrender and return to prison, and can continue with conventional treatment till the bail order is passed, Prasanna Kumar argued.
On arguments of Darshan’s counsel on the conduct of the deceased Renukaswamy, Kumar argued that the deceased allegedly sent pictures of his genitals to Pavitra Gowda, accused No. 1, through her Instagram account.
The Instagram app provides blocking or reporting options but the accused did not use them. Instead, she sent a message through accused No. 3 to the deceased and accused No.3 started chatting with him as Pavithra Gowda.
If they really wanted to avoid him, they could have blocked him, he argued, linking the dots between the accused and pointing to Call Detail Records. The hearing was adjourned to Monday.