8 schoolchildren killed, 11 injured as private bus rams into overloaded Omni

Bengaluru, Apr 4: Sixteen coronavirus cases have

been confirmed in Karnataka, taking the total number of the affected in the state to 144, the Health department said here on Saturday.

A 75-year old man, who is a resident of Bagalkote, who was confirmed positive on Friday and was being treated at a designated hospital in the district, expired last night.

"Till this evening, 144 COVID-19 positive cases have been confirmed in the state, which includes four deaths and 11 discharges," the health department said in a bulletin.

Out of the 129 active cases, 126 patients (including 1 pregnant woman) are in isolation at designated hospitals and are stable and three in Intensive Care Units (one on oxygen and two on Ventilators), it said.

Among the total of 144 cases detected and confirmed so far, eight are transit passengers of Kerala who landed in airports in Karnataka and are being treated in the state, it said.

Mangaluru, Mar 9: A person who arrived at the airport in Mangaluru from Dubai and was admitted to the isolation ward of a hospital with symptoms of coronavirus has gone missing, sources said.

The patient, who arrived on Sunday, was shifted to the district Wenlock hospital with a high fever and a few symptoms of coronavirus.

He reportedly argued with the hospital staff late in the night that he had not contracted the virus and left the hospital saying he will take treatment in a private hospital.

The hospital health officer called up the police and a high alert has been sounded in coastal districts to locate the person who has 'escaped' from the hospital.

Dakshina Kannada district health officer Sikandar Pasha had earlier said the patient will be kept under observation for 24 hours and will be discharged after routine tests.

The district health department on Monday lodged a complaint with the Mangaluru police station and investigation is on.

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.