200 madrasa students detained at rail station for 8 hrs as officials believe WhatsApp rumour

Bengaluru, May 17: A group of 86 college students, who went to Malaysia for internship and have been stranded due to lockdown, have appealed to Karnataka Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa to help them return to Karnataka.

The students in the video have also mentioned Union Minister D V Sadananda Gowda and Kolar MP S Muniswamy and stated that States such as Kerala and Tamil Nadu have made arrangements to bring back their natives from South East Asia.

The students added that they are in the Selangor State of Malaysia. They had arrived there on March 13 for a three-month-long internship as part of their college studies. They are living in apartments arranged by their college and money with them is almost spent, their college is extending them support in this regard. They are not in a position to complete the remaining two months of internship due to lock-down in Malaysia.

Bengaluru, Jan 29: The high court has granted bail to a 37-year-old Bangladeshi woman from the Christian community on the strength of Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019.

The court cited Section 2 of the amended Citizenship Act 1955, according to which minorities from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan who entered India on or before December 31, 2014 should not be treated as illegal immigrants, while granting her bail.

Allowing the petition filed by Archana Purnima Pramanik, an illegal immigrant from Bangladesh, who claims to be staying in India since 2003, justice John Michael Cunha on Monday directed her to furnish a bail bond for Rs 2 lakh to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and cooperate with the probe.

The judge observed the allegations made against her must be proved in a full-dressed trial. Archana was booked for obtaining documents such as PAN and Aadhaar cards and also fraudulently obtaining an Indian passport on March 28 last year. Based on a complaint filed by the assistant passport officer, Archana was arrested on November 7, 2019 and her bail petition was dismissed by a sessions court on December 4, 2019.

Born on March 23, 1983 at Tanore, Rajshahi district of Bangladesh, Archana came to India in 2003 to pursue a career in nursing. After obtaining a diploma in general nursing and midwifery at Ranchi in 2006, she worked in many reputed hospitals.

In 2010, she got married to Rajashekaran Krishnamurthy and the marriage was registered at Ranchi. After the wedding, she moved to Bengaluru and obtained PAN, Aadhaar and voter ID cards.

On April 1, 2019, Archana applied for a visa to Bangladesh for herself and her son. During her journey on May 20, 2019, they were detained at Kolkata airport and released later. However, the regional passport office issued a notice revoking Archana’s passport and she was arrested by RT Nagar police on November 7, 2019.

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.