3 cops suspended for ‘royal treatment’ for accused in Bhaskar Shetty murder case

Shivamogga, Jan 15: Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa announced here on Wednesady that he will present the state budget on March 5.

Speaking to media here at his Shekaripura residence, he said this will the first budget of Yediyurappa government after coming to power in July this year and it is going to be his seventh budget presentation.

Budget preparation are going on and priority will be given to farmers in the budget.

Hubli, Feb 24: Pro-Pakistan slogans were found written on the walls and doors of Higher Primary School in Budarsingi village here on Monday, said Raman Gouda Hatti, Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), DCRB, Dharwad.

"The headmaster of the school noticed the slogans written on the walls and doors by chalk and he informed us. We will investigate the matter based on the complaint," said DSP Hatti.

The slogans were written in the Kannada language. Those behind the incident have not been identified so far.

The villagers staged a protest demanding action against those behind the act.

Congress leader HK Patil condemned the incident and asked for culprits to be identified and punished soon.

"Anti-social elements are involved in these acts. The government has failed to identify these people and punish them. The culprits behind this act need to be identified and punished. This incident is unfortunate and the intelligence department should work to stop these kinds of incidents," said Patil.

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.