Govt failed to get FAC okay for Yettinahole project: Petitioner

Bengaluru, Feb 19: Pointing out that there was a deliberate attempt to cover up police excesses by implicating innocent persons at whim, the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday granted conditional bail to 21 people who were accused by police of involving in violence during the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in Mangaluru.

Allowing the bail petitions of Ashik and 20 others from Udupi and Dakshina Kannada districts, Justice John Michael Cunha said the overzealousness of the police is also evident from the fact that FIRs were registered under Section 307 of IPC against the persons killed by the police themselves.

“In an offence involving a large number of people, the identity and participation of each accused must be fixed with reasonable certainty. In the present cases, the identity appears to have been fixed on the basis of their affiliation to PFI and they being members of the Muslim community. Though it is stated that the involvement of the petitioners is captured in CCTV footage and photographs, no such material is produced before the court showing the presence of any of the petitioners at the spot, armed with deadly weapons,” the judge noted.

In the statement of objections filed by the State Public Prosecutor-I, it was stated that there was a hint of Muslim youths holding protest on December 19, 2019, opposing the implementation of CAA. Prohibitory orders were clamped in that connection. This assertion indicated that the common object of the assembly was to oppose the implementation of CAA and National Register for Citizens (NRC) which, by itself, was not an “unlawful object”, the judge pointed out.

‘Pics show cops throwing stones at crowd’

Justice Cunha also said the material collected by the investigators did not contain any specific evidence regarding the presence of any of the petitioners at the spot. On the other hand, omnibus allegations were made against the Muslim crowd of 1,500-2,000, alleging that they were armed with weapons like stones, soda bottles and glass pieces. The photographs produced by the SPP depicted that hardly any member of the crowd were armed with weapons, except one of them holding a bottle. In none of these photographs, police station or policemen were seen in the vicinity, the judge noted.

“On the other hand, photographs produced by the petitioners show that the policemen themselves were pelting stones at the crowd. The petitioners have produced copies of the complaints lodged by the dependants of the deceased who died due to police firing and the endorsement made thereon reveals that even though the law required the police to register independent FIRs in view of the specific complaint made against the police officers making out cognizable offences, the police have failed to register FIRs. This goes to show that a deliberate attempt is underway to cover up police excesses by implicating innocent persons at the whims and caprice of the police,” the judge observed.

In the wake of counter-allegations against the police and in the backdrop of their failure to register FIRs based on complaints lodged by the families of victims, the possibility of false and mistaken implication could not be ruled out, the judge said. In these circumstances, it would be a travesty of justice to deny bail to the petitioners and sacrifice their liberties to the mercy of the district administration and police. The records indicate that a deliberate attempt has been made to trump up evidence and to deprive the liberties of the petitioners by fabricating evidence. None of the petitioners have any criminal antecedents, the court said.

“The allegations levelled against the petitioners are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. There is no direct evidence to connect them with the alleged offence. The investigation appears to be malafide and partisan. In the circumstances, in order to protect the rights and liberties of the petitioners, it is necessary to admit them to bail,” the judge said.

The petitioners were arrested and remanded in judicial custody after the anti-CAA protests on charges of being members of an unlawful assembly, armed with lethal weapons, attempting to set fire to the North Police Station in Mangaluru, obstructing the police from discharging their duties and causing damage to public property, etc., on December 19 in violation of the prohibitory orders. They moved the High Court as their bail pleas had been rejected by a sessions court in Dakshina Kannada.

Kozhikode, Jun 9: Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan's daughter Veena T is all set to marry DYFI National President and CPM state committee member PA Muhammad Riyas on June 15. Interestingly, it's the second marriage for both. 

Veena, the elder daughter of Pinarayi Vijayan and Kamala Vijayan, is an IT entrepreneur based in Bengaluru.

According to sources, the marriage will be a simple function in Thiruvananthapuram where only close relatives will participate. The marriage registration has already been done. 

"It's only a private affair of two individuals," Riyas told media persons, reluctant to divulge more details. 

The 44-year-old Muhammad Riyas started his political career with the Students Federation of India (SFI) and climbed up the rungs through DYFI. He had unsuccessfully contested against UDF's M K Raghavan from Kozhikode parliament constituency in 2009. 

The son of retired IPS officer P M Abdul Khadar, Riyas is the familiar face of the left in primetime TV discussions, strongly articulating the CPM stance. 

A law graduate, he had begun at the grassroots level and gradually worked his way up the ladder. 

His marriage to Dr Sameeha Saithalavi, a former syndicate member of Calicut University, happened in 2002. The couple separated in 2015 and they have two sons aged 10 and 13. 

The 40-plus Veena is MD of the IT firm Exalogic Solutions since 2014. 

Prior to that, she was the CEO of RT Technosoft, a Thiruvananthapuram-based company owned by NRI industrialist Ravi Pillai. Before that, she had a six-year stint with Oracle. She has a son from her first marriage. 

"They both were divorced for more than five years. They knew each other and the marriage decision was taken by them only. It's completely a private affair," said a DYFI leader.