I want Narendra Modi to continue as India’s Prime Minister: S M Krishna

Mysuru, Jan 21: South Indian actor Rashmika Mandanna, whose house was raided recently by IT sleuths, appeared for an inquiry along with her father Mr Madan Mandanna, here on Tuesday.

She arrived at the office of Principal Commissioner for IT, at Nazarbad, in the city. She was accompanied by nine persons, including auditors and accountants, who carried two backpacks and a kitbag.

Mr Madan mandanna said, "the IT officials have sought some documents and we are here to submit them."

Feb 3: The Karnataka government is probably the only state to have so many nodal agencies to deal with investment proposals. There is the KIADB, Karnataka Udyoga Mitra, State High Level Clearance Committee (SHLCC), State Level Single Window Clearance Committee (SLSWCC) and District Level Single Window Clearance Committee.

While the government claims these have been created to speed up the process of setting up industries, they’re only delaying it. “A four-to-five year delay in acquiring land has become the norm,’’ say industry sources.

“These entities are only adding layers of obstacles to investors and is not really helping industries,” said a senior IAS officer.

While DLSWCCs are headed by deputy commissioners are empowered to clear investment proposals up to Rs 15 crore, SLSWCC, headed by the industries minister, clears proposals more than Rs 15 crore and up to Rs 500 crore. Proposals worth more than Rs 500 crore have to be cleared by SHLCC chaired by the CM. These entities have to meet regularly and clear proposals. But often, these meetings don’t happen as scheduled. “The delay starts from here,” said Vasant Ladava, industrialist and member of Karnataka Industries and Commerce, Bengaluru.

The single-window agencies involving representatives of departments like industries, revenue, pollution control board and forest are supposed to collectively give necessary clearances required for industries. “But, of late, they have become only project approvers without other responsibilities, leaving investors in the lurch,” said Ladava.

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.