Bengaluru: ATM cash van driver escapes with Rs 75 lakh

Bengaluru, Feb 20: Leaving the organisers of an event to protest against the CAA, NRC and NRP here red-faced, a young woman on Thursday reportedly raised "Pakistan Zindabad" slogan in the presence of AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi, who denounced her action and asserted "we are for India".

The woman, identified as Amulya, allegedly asked people to shout with her "Pakistan Zindabad" after the organisers of the event under the banner of "Save Constitution" invited her to address the gathering soon after Owaisi came on the stage.

Soon Owaisi rushed to snatch the mike from her hands and was joined by others who tried to remove her from the state.

But the woman was adamant and raised the slogan again repeatedly. Later, the police stepped in and removed her from the dais.

Owaisi then addressed the gathering, saying he did not agree with the woman.

"Neither me nor my party has any link with her. We denounce her. The organisers should not have invited her here. If I knew this, I would not have come here. We are for India and we no way support our enemy nation Pakistan. Our entire drive is to save India," the AIMIM MP said.

JD(S) corporator Imran Pasha claimed she was planted by some rival group to disrupt the event.

The woman, he said, was not in the list of speakers and demanded that the police investigate the matter seriously.

Sources say Amulya hails from Chikkamagaluru and her parents have always been in the forefront of taking on government and its policies for well over a decade. 

As per local TV reports, the student was taken to Upparpet police station, but later shifted to an undisclosed destination for more questioning.

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.