Kasaragod medical college: Academic block nearing completion; hospital block work set to begin

Vijayapura, June 16: Even as a video of a man wearing a burqa who is being thrashed by locals is going viral on social media, netizens targeted Bharatiya Janata Party for their activist resorting to heinous acts. 

The man who was caught in burqa has been identified as Siddu Paragond, an activist of Snagh Parivar hailing from Sindgi town in Karnataka’s Vijayapura district. 

The bizarre incident took place in Sindgi on June 11 outside a bank.

“While people including women were standing in a queue outside the bank, the person in burqa was acting in a suspicious manner. The person was trying to get too close to women which was making them feel awkward,” local residents said.

“Getting suspicious, some locals tried to interact and their suspicion rose with the strange behaviour of the person. Suddenly some men took the person away from the bank and checked only to find that it was a man in burqa. The men thrashed him and handed him over to police,” the sources said.

Confirming this, Superintendent of Police Anupam Agrawal said that the Siddu Paragond has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody. He, however, made it clear that no suspicious objects were found on Siddu. “We are trying to find out the motive for his act,” the SP said.

Puttur, June 10: Passengers of a KSRTC bus had a miraculous escape while driver and conductor suffered minor injuries after it fell on a house below 25ft.

Police said that except for some minor injuries to the driver and conductor none of the 21 passengers were hurt.

The bus was bound for Ishwaramangala from Puttur when the mishap took place as the driver lost control over the steering.

The roof and walls of the house on which the bus fell was partially damaged.

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.