Hindutva activist gets 7 years rigorous imprisonment for raping, cheating girlfriend

Bengaluru, Jan 17: Six persons, said to be supporters of Social Democratic Party of India, have been arrested in connection alleged attempt to murder a member of RSS in Bengaluru.

Varun Bhopala (34), a resident of Sarakki in JP Nagar, was attacked while he was on his way to his father's shop near JC Road after attending a pro-CAA event organised by the RSS and other Hindutva organisations on December 22, 2019.

Police commissioner Bhaskar Rao said the arrested are Irfan alias Mohammed Irfan (33), Syed Akbar alias Mechanic Akbar (46), Syed Siddiq Akbar (30), Akbar Basha (27), Sanaulla Sharif (28) and Sadiq UL Ameen (39) - all residents of KG Halli in East and North Bengaluru.

Rao said the arrested wanted to attack and kill the leaders who took part in the pro-CAA event. They initially pelted seven stones to scatter the crowd so that they can attack the leaders, but they failed. Later, they saw Varun walking out of the crowd wearing a saffron shirt. So the arrested followed him and attacked him with lethal weapons. Assuming he is dead, the gang fled on their bikes towards Bidadi.

''The SDPI activists were funded by their leaders to create a disturbance, kill Hindu organisation leaders,'' Rao said. "I have formed a special team to investigate in-depth about the SDPI activities and take necessary action,'' he added.

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.