5 Covid Day Care Centres with 870 beds opened in Udupi

Bengaluru, June 11: Amulya Leona, a college student, who was charged with sedition for raising "Pakistan zindabad" slogans in Bengaluru, has finally been granted bail. 

The court had denied her bail yesterday, saying she might abscond. But her lawyers had been pursuing another way of getting her out of jail where she has spent nearly four months.

Ms Leona's advocate, Prasanna R, said that the delay of the state in submitting a chargesheet in the case beyond the stipulated time meant she was eligible for "default bail".

"The default bail application was moved before the magistrate under whose jurisdiction the alleged crime was committed. The chargesheet has not been submitted by the state within 90 days. So default bail has been granted. We had moved the default bail plea on May 26 and again on May 29 when the court told us the earlier mail IDs had been disabled. A physical application was filed on June 2. The state filed the chargesheet on June 3," the lawyer said.

While the state tried to argue that they were entitled to an extension in the time allotted, the court hearing this aspect of the case gave an order favourable to Ms Leona. The process is on to release her.

The arrest of Ms Leona during a rally against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act or CAA in Bengaluru had led to a debate on the use of sedition charges.

The woman on a Facebook post had also said "zindabad" to many countries including India and Pakistan. She did also try to chant "Hindustan zindabad", but was soon silenced and whisked away. She was accused of sedition, causing enmity between communities and causing deliberate mischief.

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.

Bengaluru, Jan 21: Karnataka Chief Minister's political adviser MP Renukacharya has courted controversy yet again with his remarks targeting the Muslim community at a pro-CAA rally in Karnataka on Monday.

Addressing a rally in support of the new citizenship law, the BJP lawmaker accused Muslims of collecting weapons in mosques instead of praying. "There are few traitors who sit in a masjid and write fatwas. They collect weapons inside the mosque instead of praying. Is this why you want a Masjid," Renukacharya said on Monday.

Renukacharya said he won't hesitate to use the money allotted to Muslims for Hindus. "I will resort to such politics in my taluk where the money allotted for Muslims can be used for Hindus. I will put you [Muslims] in your place and show what politics is," said Renukacharya, who is a close aide of CM BS Yediyurappa.

This is not the first time a Karnataka BJP leader has made communal remarks targeting the minority community. Earlier, BJP MLA Somashekar Reddy had made controversial remarks at a pro-citizenship law protest in Ballari when he asked those opposing the Citizenship (Amendment) Act to think of the "consequences" if the majority community members hit the streets against them.

The MLA had said, "If you do any drama, then if 100 per cent people come, understand what will be your situation. Congress people are lying to you, believing them you are coming on streets. We are 80 per cent, you are 17 per cent, if we react, what will be your situation? Be careful," Reddy had said.

Following outrage, a case was filed against Somashekar Reddy for alleged provocative speech targeting those protesting against the amended citizenship law.