‘Will Withdraw Case If…’: Kannada Actor Darshan’s Lawyer Stuns Court With This Argument | South-cinema News

Darshan’s counsel, advocate Sunil, startled the court by saying he was prepared to withdraw the case

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday, September 30, heard the petition concerning facilities provided to actor Darshan in prison. Jail authorities submitted their report before the bench, which, after lengthy arguments, reserved its order for October 9.

The matter came up when Darshan’s counsel, advocate Sunil, startled the court by saying he was prepared to withdraw the case. His remarks raised questions on what prompted such a stand.

Sunil’s primary argument centered on the demand that Darshan’s prison cell be shifted, a request that authorities had not acted upon. When the hearing resumed after a short adjournment, Sunil warned the bench that ignoring the court’s directions would cause “serious hardship”.

At this juncture, Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Prasanna Kumar interjected, urging the counsel to be precise. “My dear friend, please specify the facilities you are seeking,” he said, adding that the authorities had already provided what was required by law and beyond that, what was the need for prolonged arguments.

Sunil, however, questioned why Darshan was being singled out for heightened security. Several prominent figures have been jailed before. Were they ever given this kind of treatment? Why is Darshan being kept under such extraordinary measures? Most inmates are placed in quarantine cells only for 14 days, yet here it has been stretched to 45 days. Is this equal justice? Look at the facilities provided to Umesh Reddy; they were almost luxurious. I can produce documents if needed, he contended.

The presiding judge, seeking to cut short the verbal sparring, remarked, “State clearly what you are asking for. The court has other matters to attend to. Let us not waste time.”

Sunil responded by alleging that the jail authorities, backed by the prosecution, were inventing rules that did not exist. This drew immediate objection from the SPP, who dismissed the charge.

Sunil went on to claim that the word “quarantine” does not appear in the jail manual. “If it were mentioned even once, I would not have pursued this matter further,” he argued.

The SPP promptly rebutted this assertion, producing the manual and pointing out that “quarantine” is referenced 11 times, including in sections related to quarantine procedures. “Given this, the application itself deserves to be withdrawn,” he told the court.

After hearing both sides, the bench reserved its verdict for October 9.