Suratkal police seize 18 cattle, arrest 2 after intercepting goods van

Kundapur, Apr 10: Police have lodged a case against Nagaraj Mogaveera, 28, a resident of Karwadi Saukur in Kundapur, for sharing a communal hatred and sensitive post over Facebook.

On his Facebook page, he wrote, "1,500 persons went to Delhi mosque from Karnataka. Each person's test costs Rs 4,500 which becomes expenditure of Rs 67,50,000 in all. If they be encountered, each bullet costs Rs. 63 and the total expenditure will be Rs 94,500."

According to the complaint filed by Mukhtar Ahmad of the Janata Colony of Kundapur Karwadi village on Friday, the police have booked a case under the IPC Section 1860, 295A, 505 (2) and launched the investigation.

Bengaluru, Jun 3: The Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences at Hubballi has successfully treated a COVID-19 patient through plasma therapy, state medical education minister K Sudhakar said today.

"Karnataka achieves yet another milestone in battle against #COVID19. KIMS Hubli has successfully treated a Covid19 patient through Plasma Therapy & is the first institute in the state to accomplish this. Congrats to KIMS doctors & staff for this feat!" Mr Sudhakar tweeted.

In plasma therapy treatment, plasma cells from a COVID-19 patient, who has recovered from the disease, is transfused to a coronavirus patient who is in critical condition to treat him.

Plasma therapy was effectively used in the past during Ebola and the Spanish flu pandemic.

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.