2 children die in suicide pact, parents critical

Bengaluru, May 6: Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa on Wednesday urged migrant workers to stay back as construction activities have resumed and also announced a Rs 1,610 crores COVID-19 financial package for the state.

The Chief Minister also said that close to one lakh persons, including migrant workers and students, among others, have so far been sent back to their home towns from Karnataka.

"We have sent around one lakh people in 3,500 buses and trains, back to their home towns. I have also appealed to migrant workers to stay as the construction work has resumed now," the Chief Minister said at a press conference on Wednesday.

"A package of Rs 1,610 crores will be released as COVID-19 financial relief. One time compensation of Rs 5,000 will be given to 2,30,000 barbers and 7,75,000 drivers," he added.

During the course of the press conference, the Chief Minister also announced compensation for floriculturists in the state.

Mysuru, Feb 14: Two weeks after her engagement with another boy, a 20-year-old girl who was in love with a boy, committed suicide at her residence in Nanjangud on Wednesday.

Meghana's parents have accused her lover Manikanta of Hemmargala of abetting her suicide. The girl's father in his complaint has claimed that Manikanta threatened to send their photos to her fiance following which she took the extreme step. He has also claimed his daughter was molested by Manikanta two years ago.

Manikanta who is on the run has been booked for rape and abetting suicide following the complaint.

Since the girl was from the SC community, cops have also slapped cases under Atrocities (Prevention) Act against Manikanta. Nanjangud sub-division DSP Prabhkar Rao Shinde will investigate the case as charges have been made under provisions of the act.

Bengaluru, Feb 14: In a major embarrassment to the police, the Karnataka High Court has termed as illegal the prohibitory orders imposed under Section 144 of CrPC by the City Police Commissioner in December 2019 in the light of the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests in Bengaluru.

The orders were passed “without application of mind” and without following due procedures, the court noted. Giving reasons for upholding the arguments of the petitioners that there was no application of mind by the Police Commissioner (Bhaskar Rao) before imposing restrictions, a division bench of the High Court said he had not recorded the reasons, except reproducing the contents of letters addressed to him by the Deputy Commissioners of Police (DCPs). 

The state government had contended that prohibitory orders were passed based on reports submitted by the DCPs who expressed apprehension about anti-social elements creating law and order problems and damaging public property by taking advantage of the anti-CAA protests.  

The High Court bench said the Police Commissioner should have conducted inquiry as stated by the Supreme Court to check the reasons cited by the DCPs who submitted identical reports. Except for this, there were no facts laid out by the Police Commissioner, the court said.

“There is complete absence of reasons. If the order indicated that the Police Commissioner was satisfied by the apprehension of DCPs, it would have been another matter,” it said.  

“The apex court has held that it must record the reasons for imposition of restrictions and there has to be a formation of opinion by the district magistrate. Only then can  the extraordinary powers conferred on the district magistrate can be exercised. This procedure was not followed. Hence, exercise of power under Section 144 by the commissioner, as district magistrate, was not at all legal”, the bench said. 

“We hold that the order dated December 18, 2019 is illegal and cannot stand judicial scrutiny in terms of the apex court’s orders in the Ramlila Maidan case and Anuradha Bhasin case,” the HC bench said while upholding the arguments of Prof Ravivarma Kumar, who appeared for some of the petitioners.   

Partly allowing a batch of public interest petitions questioning the imposition of prohibitory orders and cancelling the permission granted for protesters in the city, the bench of Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice Hemant Chandangoudar observed that, unfortunately, in the present case, there was no indication of application of mind in passing prohibitory orders.

The bench said the observation was confined to this order only and it cannot be applicable in general. If there is a similar situation (necessitating imposition of restrictions), the state is not helpless, the court said.