‘Lajja Gauri’ idol discovered on roadside at Barkur

New Delhi, May 14: The National Investigation Agency (NIA) probing the Al-Hind Islamic State (IS) Bengaluru module case has announced a cash reward of Rs three lakh for wanted absconder Abdul Mateen Taahaa.

An NIA spokesperson in Delhi said, "We have declared a cash reward of Rs three lakh for providing any information leading to arrest of Taahaa." The spokesperson said that Taahaa, 26, a resident of Shimoga in Karnataka is wanted in Al-Hind ISIS Bengaluru module case that the agency registered this year. The NIA had taken over the probe from the Karnataka Police.

According to the NIA officials, the case relates to ISIS-linked terror group formed by arrested accused Mehboob Pasha, along with accused Khaja Moideen aka Jalal and his associates involved in the murder of a Hindu leader in Tamil Nadu. The official said that Pasha conducted several meetings in 2019 at his residence in Bengaluru to hatch the conspiracy, by radicalising and recruiting other co-accused to carry out terror activities and join ISIS in Afghanistan or Syria.

The NIA has arrested 12 accused namely Pasha, Imran aka Imran Khan, Mohammed Haneef Khan, Mohammed Mansoor Ali Khan, Saleem Khan aka Kolar Saleem, Hussain Sharieff, Ejaz Pasha aka Azaz Pasha, Zabiulla, Syed Azmathulla, Syed Fasiur Rehman, Mohammed Zaid and Sadiq Basha.

The official said that Taahaa is a friend of arrested accused Saleem and Zaid, through whom he contacted arrested accused Pasha of Al-Hind Trust and was also associated with his online foreign handler.

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.