Mangaluru engineering college students held for raping 19-yr-old married woman

Mangaluru, Mar 1: A youth lost his life in a lift crash at a wedding hall at Kallapu near Thokkottu on the outskirts of the city today. 

The deceased has been identified as Hamzah (30), a resident near Thumbay, who was part of the catering team hired for the marriage ceremony. 

The tragedy occurred at around 2 p.m. when Hamzah was getting ready to bring utensils and other things by lift from the third floor of the hall. All of a sudden, the lift’s ropes came loose and Hamzah lost his balance and got trapped inside.

He was pulled out and rushed to a hospital in Deralakatte, but he breathed his last on the way. He is survived by his wife and three children.

Udupi, June 21: An entrepreneur lost his life after the car he was driving veered off the road and plunged into a roadside tank near Barkuru in Brahmavar taluk of Udupi district today.

The deceased has been identified as Santosh Shetty, a resident of Vakwadi in Kundapur taluk. He is the proprietor of Laxmi Glass and Plywood, Koteshwara. 

A woman, identified as Shweta, who was also on board the car suffered critical injuries.  

The mishap occurred when the duo was heading to Vakwadi from Brahmavar in Hyundai Car sedan car. 

Shetty lost control over his vehicle while negotiating a curve at Chaulikere and the car plunged off the road as there was no barricade. 

Even though local residents began rescue operation immediately, Shetty breathed his last on the spot. Shweta was rescued and shifted to a hospital in Manipal for treatment.

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.