ASHAs hold protest across Karnataka demanding PPE kits, salary hike

Bengaluru, June 23: A senior IAS officer allegedly, who had faced arrest in connection with I Monetary Advice (IMA) scam, today allegedly committed suicide by hanging himself at his residence in the city. 

The deceased is BM Vijay Shankar. He had been arrested by special investigation team (SIT) in the I Monetary Advice (IMA) case when he was deputy commissioner (DC) Urban Bengaluru. 

He had spent few days in the jail over his alleged involvement in the IMA scam and was released on bail. The IMA case is currently being probed by Central Bureau of Investigation.

Shankar was staying in Jayanagar near Ashoka Pillar along with his family members.

Shankar was accused of taking Rs 1.5 crore to approve a report on financial irregularities, and was accused of giving a clean chit to the main accused of IMA scam, Mohammed Mansoor Khan.

The incident came to light around 8 pm. It is alleged that Shankar ended his life around 7.00 pm, when he was alone in the house. Shankar was said to be under severe depression after his name surfaced in the scam, and his subsequent arrest.

However, the exact reason for his extreme step is yet to be identified. Tilak Nagar police have taken up the case of mysterious death under CrPc and are probing further. As of now the police officials have not found any death note. A senior officer said: "once we finish the procedures of investigating the spot his body will be shifted to Victoria hospital for post mortem. The report will find out exact cause of his death".

Police commissioner Bhaskar Rao said: "We have taken up the case of unnatural death with regard to Vijay Shankar's death. Further probe will reveal more details about it".
 

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.

Bengaluru, Jan 14: A woman has sustained burns on the left hand and the left chest in a vicious acid attack that occurred as she walked home in Mallappa Layout, Seegehalli, near KR Puram in Bengaluru.

Prabhavathi, the victim, and her husband, Radhakrishna Reddy, own an acre and six guntas of land in Seegehalli. They had constructed 20 houses on the parcel and rented them while keeping the rest of the land empty and building a boundary wall around it, according to a senior police officer. 

Four men named Ravi, Kumar, Ashirvadam and Shekar laid claim to the land and demolished the boundary wall two years ago. When the couple approached the cops, Manjunath, a sub-inspector from KR Puram police station, visited the spot along with other officers and allegedly abused Reddy and his family. 

Reddy then approached a senior police officer who suggested that he file a complaint against the sub-inspector as well as his rivals for threatening the family. The case is pending in a case. 

On January 7, Ravi, along with four others — Raghu, Kabalan, Ashrivadam and Munireddy — mocked Prabhavathi as she walked home. They asked her to withdraw the complaint. When she ignored them, one of the men motioned to another person. In a flash, a man in the group threw acid on Prabhavathi. The liquid fell on her left hand and left chest, gashing them. Her screams drew her family who rushed her to a hospital. 

Reddy said the suspects had been intimidating them to sell the remaining land. He accused the KR Puram sub-inspector of “threatening” the family.

According to Reddy, following their complaint, a departmental enquiry was launched against the sub-inspector and his promotion was stalled. He suggested that the suspects had used the acid attack as a weapon to “silence” and force them into withdrawing the complaints. 

Following the acid attack, KR Puram police booked eight people — Ravi, Raghu, Kabalan, Ashirvadam, Munireddy, Sachin, Rahul, and Kumareshan — under IPC sections 326 (a) (acid attack) and 506 (criminal intimidation). Efforts are on to track them down.