Puttur: Rape attempt on student after SSLC exam by two relatives

Karwar, June 29: The additional sessions court, Sirsi town police station and office of the deputy superintendent of police in Uttara Kannada district were sealed on Sunday after an undertrial was found positive for Covid-19.

The undertrial, accused of stealing a bike, from Hubballi was arrested by Sirsi police and had initially tested negative. He was confirmed infected when his samples were tested the second time.

He was arrested by Dharwad police in connection with a bike theft case. During interrogation it was found that he had stolen bikes in Sirsi too. Sirsi police had brought him from Dharwad sub-jail for the interrogation and was produced in the court.

The accused was in Manipal jail for some time after he was convicted there for the bike theft. While bringing him to Sirsi the police had wore PPE kits.

When he was produced in the court the judge had reportedly directed the police test him for covid as he had some symptoms.

His swab was collected and sent to the lab. In the first test the result was negative but it was positive in another test. At that time he was in Sirsi sub-jail. 10 police officials who had come into his contact have been quarantined. The police station has been sealed down and the court will be closed down on Monday and Tuesday.

All the under trails who were kept with him in the sub-jail have been isolated and their swab has been sent for the testing.

Kasaragod, Jan 3: A serving officer of the Central Intelligence Bureau (CIB) was found dead inside his car in Bekal town near here early on Friday.

Police sources said the officer, Rijo Francis (35) has been under treatment after he had an heart attack last year.

Police suspect that the death could be due to heart failure.

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.