Bantwal: 11-year-old boy thrashed by group for resisting sexual advances

Mangaluru, Apr 12: A 10-month-old baby who tested COVID-19 positive on March 27 completed treatment and discharged from hospital on Saturday.

He was the youngest positive case in Karnataka, from Sajipanadu village in Bantwal taluk.

The child had been with his mother to a relative's house at Monetepadau village, situated on the Karnataka-Kerala border in the first week of March.

A few days later the child developed an acute respiratory illness and tested positive for the COVID-19 virus.

Treating the breastfeeding child was challenging for doctors as he had to be isolated. A team of doctors from Wenlock Hospital took up this challenge and successfully cured the baby.

Test reports on his mother and grandmother too have returned negative. They too had been under quarantine and were discharged with the baby.

Another positive development was that no COVID-19 case has been reported from the child's village.  

The entire Sajipanadu village was completely sealed after the child tested positive and the district had provided all the necessary supplies to the villagers.

Mangaluru, Apr 25: Heavy rain lashed Mangaluru and surrounding areas on Saturday, providing the people respite from the sweltering heat, which they have been experiencing for the last few weeks. 

The rain, which started around 10.30 pm on Friday, lashed heavily after 2 am. Later, there was drizzle for sometime before it stopped raining around 8 am. 

People were seen walking towards the market to purchase essential commodities holding an umbrella and wearing a raincoat.

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.