Judge cracks joke to lighten high-voltage hearing on Karnataka crisis

Bengaluru, June 23: A frustrated chartered accountant has committed suicide after killing his wife and mother-in-law in two different cities of India.

The murder-murder-suicide came amid acrimonious divorce proceedings that might have also involved a property dispute, police said.

Amit flew to Bengaluru last weekend to kill his estranged wife at her Whitefield residence before returning to Kolkata, where he shot dead his mother-in-law and then killed himself at an upscale residential complex in North Kolkata on Monday evening.

Amit and his wife Shilpi Agarwal, who is also a CA, had been living separately since last the two years after their marriage turned sour.

Amit took his 10-year-old son from Bengaluru with him on Monday and dropped him at his uncle’s house before heading to his in-laws’ place Phoolbagan, police said.

Neighbours told cops they heard arguments “appeared to be” over some property documents that Amit wanted his in-laws — 70-year-old Subhas and 62-year-old Lalita Dhandhania — to sign.

The first gunshot was heard a little before 6.30pm, following which Subhas ran out of his flat, bolted the door from outside and took refuge inside his next-door neighbour’s apartment. Police arrived a few minutes later to find Amit and his mother-in-law dead. Police found a suicide note from the flat.

Bengaluru, Mar 10: A 75-year-old man who arrived in Kalaburagi from Saudi Arabia on February 29 has been admitted to the isolation ward at Gulbarga Institute of Medical Sciences (GIMS) after he showed symptoms of coronavirus. 

His throat swab has been sent to the laboratory of Bengaluru’s Victoria Hospital. The district Health and Family Welfare Department is waiting for the report. 

The aged man who arrived from Saudi Arabia on February 28, was admitted to a private hospital on March 5 following fever and cough. As he showed the symptoms similar to coronavirus, the health of his family members has also been examined by the doctors and a close watch on them is being kept.

Recently, first confirmed positive case was reported from Whitefield in Bengaluru. The state government had also declared holiday for all primary schools in Bengaluru.

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.