2 passengers caught after footwear exchange in Dubai-Bengaluru flight; 1.3kg gold paste seized

Bewngaluru, Jun 23: Karnataka Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa on Tuesday said Covid-19 related fatalities in the state was far less compared to other major states, as he called on people and front line corona warriors infected by the virus not to lose courage.

The Chief Minister made the statement following the alleged suicide of a constable attached with the Karnataka State Reserve Police after he tested positive for Covid-19. "The total number of COVID related deaths in the state is very less compared to other major states.

There is no reason for any infected citizen or government employees to lose courage. The government is always with you," a tweet on the Chief Minister's official twitter handle said.

Of the total of 14,011 deaths reported so far, Maharashtra accounted for the highest with 6,283 fatalities, followed by Delhi with 2,233, Gujarat with 1,684 and Tamil Nadu with 794.

Acknowledging that police form the frontline of corona warriors and were working putting their lives at stake, he said a special Covid-19 testing center is being set up for them and all measures will be taken to provide the best treatment for those infected.

As of June 22 evening, cumulatively 9,399 Covid-19 positive cases have been confirmed in the state, which includes 142 deaths and 5,730 discharges.

The constable, aged about 50 years, was attached with the Karnataka State Reserve Police and was said to be depressed after getting tested positive for Covid-19, sources said.

Expressing condolence over his death, another tweet on the Chief Minister's handle said he has directed officials to to provide all necessary compensation and facilities to the family of the deceased at the earliest. Bengaluru has in the last few days has seen a spike in the number of police personnel getting infected by the virus. At least 74 of them have tested positive in the city and are undergoing treatment, while three have died so far, official sources said.

Bengaluru, Mar 5: Amulya Leona, the 19-year-old woman who captured a nation’s attention by shouting full-throated slogans, allegedly in support of Pakistan, at a rally in Bengaluru, has reportedly held her composure under grilling by the Special Investigating Team (SIT).

The woman was arrested after her speech to an audience of protesters against the Citizenship Amendment Act on February 19, and was slapped with sedition charges.

Sources in the police said Amulya Leona seemed to be absolutely normal during interrogation by senior cops, unlike most other persons in such circumstances.

Not once throughout the grilling nor in judicial custody did she break down.

Amulya is said to have defended herself on charges that she shouted pro-Pakistan slogans. She made it clear that by speaking out at the rally at Freedom House, she did not mean to support the enemy country and that she was not against India.

Lower-rung officers said Amulya Leona seemed to be considerably influenced by the late firebrand activist Gowri Lankesh, who was shot dead in 2017.

In fact, the policewomen to whose charge she was entrusted right after she was arrested are said to have heaved a sigh of relief when she handed over to custody of prison staff.

An urban legend going around in lower-rung police circles is that Amulya Leona attended the funeral of Gowri Lankesh and fainted near where the late activist was buried. “It’s impossible for a 19-year-old to show such grit. We have seen hardcore criminals breaking down in custody. Forget about breaking down, Amulya Leona is becoming stronger,” they explain.

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.