44 new cases of COVID-19 reported in Karnataka

Bengaluru, Feb 29: Dreaded underworld don Ravi Poojary's lawyer Dilraj has allegedly been kept out of hearing distance and as a mute spectator during interrogation by the police.

"The lawyer is a mute spectator out of hearing distance from the interrogation. He is not privy to what police ask Pujari," a source told media.

As directed by the court and requested by Poojary, Dilraj is allowed to be present near the interrogation for him to consult on legal issues, but the cops have made sure that he does not hear anything for fear of leaking information.

The court has also ordered the interrogation to be video graphed, which the police are carrying out.

Police sources said that Ravi Poojary is relaxed and cool during the multi-lingual interrogation.

"He is cool, giving frank replies. Poojary is exhibiting confidence in whatever he is telling. Maybe confidently lying, police are not new to him," said the source.

According to source, the gangster knows how to handle police, with sufficient knowledge to reveal how much he wants to, when to stop, when to talk, when to mislead and plant false information.

"Poojary is being interrogated in his mother tongue Kannada, Hindi and English. He is fluent in English," the source said.

However, the source denied speculation gaining currency that Poojary requested police not to send him to Mumbai fearing of being eliminated by the henchmen of dreaded underworld dons Dawood Ibrahim and Chota Rajan.

"Nothing of that sort happened. It doesn't work like that. He has been captured after 25 years, and he is not a king to choose. Wherever the law takes him, he will go there," said the source.

Rajan is serving a life sentence inside a high security cell in Delhi's Tihar jail.

Currently, the probe is focused on Tilknagar Shabnam Developers double murder shootout case. Police are discovering information, verifying it with respect to evidence and building the case.

Taking regular breaks, police are interrogating Poojary from morning till evening.

Of the over 200 cases against Poojary in the southern state, 39 are in Bengaluru, 36 at Mangaluru, 11 in Udupi on the state's west coast and one each at Mysuru, Hubballi-Dharwad, Kolar and Shivamogga in Malnad.

The other cases are in Mumbai (49) and in Gujarat (75) pertaining to extortion, kidnapping, ransom demand and murder threats.

Poojary also extorted huge amounts from popular Bollywood stars and realtors. He was also involved in an attempt to murder case, aimed at killing a prominent lawyer of Mumbai.

A four-member Karnataka police team led by Pandey brought the 52-year-old underworld don to Bengaluru from Dakar in Senegal via Paris in an Air France scheduled flight during the wee hours and kept him at an interrogation centre in the city's south-east suburb.

Newsroom, Apr 2: Mohammad Sirajul Hasan, former chief (ameer) of Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, passed away today at a private hospital in Karnataka’s Raichur. 

The 87-year-old was suffering from old age related diseases for past few years and he was staying with his elder son in Raichur. 

He was the Karnataka (then Mysuru) unit chief of the JIH from 1st August,1958 to 6th April, 1984. Afterwards, he was appointed as the national secretary of the organization and held this post till he elected ameer for the term 1990-94. Previously, he also served the Jamaat as its Acting Ameer for about half a year. He was re-elected Ameer of the Jamaat for the terms 1995-99 and 2000-04. 

He had also served as the vice president of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board for several years.

An orator and scholar, Sirajul Hasan was known for his scholarly lectures in Urdu and Hindi.

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.