‘Enjoyed everything then… and now destroying men’s families, career’: Harshika exposes #MeToo queens

Bengaluru, Feb 11: A 36-year-old woman who fought back after being stabbed eight times by a helmet-clad intruder succumbed to injuries at a hospital.

Susheela was in shock after she pulled off the attacker’s helmet as it was her own brother-in-law. Before breathing her last, she explained the sequence of events to the police.

She said her brother-in-law attacked her because he was eyeing their ancestral property worth over Rs 10 crore. “Susheela put up a stiff resistance and identified her assailant. But the stab injuries proved to be fatal,” said a police officer. Based on her statement, Ananth Kumar, 42, was arrested on murder charges.

The attack occurred on February 7 at Honaganahatti village in Tavarekere, off Magadi Road. Susheela, whose husband Gangaraju died in a road accident 12 years ago, was living with her 14-year-old daughter and 75-year-old mother, Rudramma.

On Friday, her daughter had gone to school and Rudramma was sitting outside the house when a man walked in wearing a full-faced helmet and attacked Susheela with a knife. She defended herself with a stick used for making ragi balls and by throwing chilli powder at his face. But the attacker stabbed her on the hand, neck and head. He fled when Susheela identified him and raised an alarm. Neighbours rushed her to a hospital.

During questioning, Kumar reportedly confessed to the crime, saying he wanted to get rid of her as she was not agreeing to sell five acres of their ancestral property.

Susheela’s nephew Kiran G said: “The family owned six acres. Kumar sold one acre for Rs 50 lakh a few years ago after convincing Susheela. He, however, paid her only Rs 5 lakh. Lately, he was pestering Susheela to sell the remaining land as buyers were ready to pay Rs 2.5 crore per acre. But she was hesitating as she had been cheated by him earlier.”

Police are now examining the circumstances under which Gangaraju was killed. “We learnt the driver who had been arrested in connection with Gangaraju’s accident is currently working with Kumar,” said an officer.

Mangaluru, June 17: As many as 47 buses have been arranged by the district administration to transport 1,043 II PU students from the border areas of Kerala to the respective examination centres in Dakshina Kannada.

The II PU English examination, which was postponed in Karnataka due to covid lockdown, will be held on June 18. A total of 26,942 students are expected to appear for the examination across the district. Among them 6322 students have chosen to write their exam in the centres near to their hometown, following the COVID-19 pandemic. As many as 1,043 students are expected to come from Kerala.

22 KSRTC buses and 11 schools buses have been arranged from Talapady toll gate near Mariyashrama Church, 2 each KSRTC buses from Punyakoti Nagara in Mudipu, Bayar and Anekal in Vittal border, 1 KSRTC bus from Pathur in Kurnadu border, 3 KSRTC buses from Saradka in Vittal border, school buses from Kayar Padav in Puttur border, Panjikallu in Sullia border, Karike in Sullia border and Alatti Baddadka have been arranged.

The students have been asked to be present at a designated place to board the bus at 7 am and have to get their hall ticket and identity card, said DC Sindhu B Rupesh.

All the students should mandatorily wear masks and use sanitisers before entering the examination centres. The principals of colleges, where students from Kerala, are studying have been asked to deploy staff to make arrangements to ensure that students reach the examination centres on time and get back home after the exam.

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.