Mangaluru: Cong workers say ‘Kumaraswamy ki jai’; JD(S) activists says ‘Sonia Gandhi ki jai’

Mangaluru, Jan 3: Mangaluru police arrested another person on charge of spreading communal hatred through messages. The accused have been identified as Abubakkar Siddique (48).

"One Abubakkar Siddique has been arrested in connection with a case for spreading communal hatred through inciting messages," said Dr PS Harsha, commissioner of police, Mangaluru.

On December 31, Police have arrested one person, Moideen Hameez, on charge of spreading communal hatred through social media.

The Mangaluru city police on Monday served notices to a few persons for posting inflammatory messages on social media.

The Cyber Crime police have summoned the accused persons to appear before it on January 2.

"Action against miscreants spreading communal hatred on social media underway in a major way. A dedicated team of cyber experts is keeping a hawk's eye on anyone fomenting communal disharmony anywhere on the internet," Harsha said in another tweet.

Belagavi, Feb 24: Almost a month after a soldier was reported missing following a trip to Gokak's Godchinamalaki falls, his wife and her lover - who was her car driver - were arrested in Belagavi for his murder.

Police said the accused, Prashant Patil, and two friends tried to throw Deepak Pattanadara, 32, off a cliff after slitting his throat. Deepak's wife, Anjali, had registered a missing case with police on February 4, saying her husband had gone on a trip with friends on January 28 and hadn't returned.

In a twist, Deepak's elder brother lodged a complaint at the same police station, alleging that Anjali was behind the disappearance.

Anjali and Prashant, both 26, were arrested on Saturday while Prashant's two friends are absconding. Deepak's decomposed body has been recovered.

Deepak, who was posted in Delhi and was on the verge of retirement after 14 years in the army, had suspected his wife's alleged affair, police said. He'd bought a car for Anjali in 2019, and since he was home only twice a year, he hired Prashant as the driver. Anjali and Prashant grew close but when Deepak asked Anjali about the affair, she denied it outright.

When Deepak came home during vacation, the duo planned to eliminate him, police said.

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.