Arjun Sarja molested 4 more actresses; I wish they come out in open: Sruthi Hariharan

Bengaluru, May 19: Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa-led Karnataka government has recommended the withdrawal of 46 cases against leaders belonging to Sangh Parivar who had apparently involved in violence during the birth anniversary celebration of Tipu Sultan in the state. 

These cases – ranging from very serious forms of assaults on Muslims to unlawful assembly – were registered across Karnataka between 2014 and 2018.

Among the cases recommended to be withdrawn include those registered against senior state BJP leader Sanjay Patil, VHP leader Swaroop Kalkundri, and several district level Bajrang Dal activists. 

The government recommended withdrawal of these cases under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on March 5. 

The recommendations, however, have been opposed by three crucial law enforcement departments – Director General and Inspector General of Police (DG & IGP), Director-Department of prosecution and Government litigation and Law department. 

While the DG & IGP has opined that these cases “cannot be withdrawn”, both the department of prosecution and law have observed that these are “not a fit case to withdraw”.

Hubballi, Mar 25: The people living in rural areas of North-Karnataka region have become more aware about deadly Corona virus as they are leaving no stone unturned to prevent people of Bengaluru and other metropolitan cities from entering into their villages. People have put thorny plants on all roads at the outskirts connecting their villages and deployed youths to conduct patrolling round the clock till next 21 days.

Their motto is to prevent their own villagers getting infected from the outsiders especially from cities like Bengaluru and other two-tier cities where positive virus cases are on the rise. They have also take precautionary measures in the wake of Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa's call to the people to return to their native places.

Several people have also dug up the roads leading to their villages to block the entry of outside vehicles. They have put a condition to the outsiders to enter into their villages only after proper health check-up to confirm that they are not infected with Corona positive.

"We don't have access to the proper medical care if Corona virus is entered into our village. The Primary Health Centres are not functioning properly and these centers are facing lack of adequate staff and medical equipments unlike in big cities.Therefore, those who have deserted our village to employ in various jobs in Bengaluru and other cities should confirm that they are tested negative for the virus", said Mallikarjun Patil of Kudal village in Hangal taluk of Haveri district. The village has totally banned the outsiders into their village and warned their fellow villagers to return immediately if they have visited to their relatives' homes in neighboring villages to observe 21-day lockdown.

Hundreds of youths in Itanal village of Chikkodi taluk of Belagavi have also resorted to similar tactics and patrolling in all roads at the outskirts by holding sticks to prevent outsiders from entering into their village until April 14.

People of Hunagunti village in Ron taluk and Kotamuchagi village in Gadag taluk have also adopted similar plan by parking tractors at th outskirts to prohibit the entry of outsiders. They have also created awareness in their villages by beating drums urging the people not to venture outside village for next three weeks.

The police officials have resorted to lati-charge at various places in urban areas when people gathered in large numbers to buy essential commodities.

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.