Mangaluru: MLA Mohiuddin Bava snubs road agitators, flies to Saudi Arabia

Bengaluru, Feb 12: Mohammed Nalapad, the rogue son of Karnataka Congress leader NA Harris, who is out on bail in a 2018 case of him bashing up a man at a pub, has now rammed his luxury car into vehicles, injuring four people on Bengaluru road.

The incident took place on Sunday on the Ballari Road where Nalapad was rash driving his car. The car hit a biker and an autorickshaw, injuring four people. He immediately got off his car and fled riding a friend's car.

The biker has suffered a fracture in his leg and is undergoing treatment at a hospital.

According to police, soon after the accident a man appeared before police to claim responsibility for the accident.

Ravikante Gowde, Joint Commissioner of Police said, "A man named Balakrishna came to surrender as the one who was driving the car. Investigation has, however, showed that it was Nalapad who was driving when he met with the accident. The investigating officer has issued him a notice to appear before the police."

BJP spokesperson S Prakash has said, "A case under the Goonda Act should be filed against Nalapad and the court should take cognisance of this and cancel his bail. The father has no control over son. He is a serial offender who is harming the public on a repeated basis."

Nalapad was earlier arrested in 2018 in the Bengaluru pub incident in which he and his associate bashed up the son of a prominent businessman in the city. Nalapad Harris is out on bail after remaining in judicial custody for three months in the case of attempt to murder after the 2018 midnight brawl.

New Delhi, April 5: Former Karnataka chief minister HD Kumaraswamy on Sunday challenged Prime Minister Narendra Modi to offer a "credible scientific and rational" explanation for his candle-lighting call and said he is giving "meaningless tasks" to an already exhausted population.

The JD(S) leader questioned if the Prime Minister asked the nation to observe a candle-light vigil on the eve of foundation day of BJP.

"Has the PM slyly asked the nation to observe a candle light vigil on the eve of foundation day of BJP? April 6 being its foundation day, what else can explain the choice of date & time for this event? I challenge the PM to offer a credible scientific and rational explanation," Kumaraswamy tweeted.

"The government is yet to provide PPEs for doctors and make test kits affordable for the common man. Without telling the nation what concrete steps are being taken to combat COVID-19 menace, the prime minister is giving meaningless tasks to an already exhausted population," he tweeted.

"It is shameful to convert the national crisis into an event of self aggrandizement & it is beyond shameful to push the hidden agenda of his party in the face of global calamity. May sense prevail upon the PM," the JDS leader said in another tweet.

Amid a nationwide COVID-19 lockdown, Prime Minister Modi on Friday appealed to countrymen to light diyas and candles on April 5 at 9 pm to fight the darkness spread by the pandemic. He asked the people to turn off all the lights in their homes and stand at doors or balconies and light candles or diyas, torches or mobile flashlights for 9 minutes on April 5.

Last month, PM Modi had asked the people to come out in their balconies and clap and beat utensils to show appreciation for doctors, nurses and others helping fight coronavirus on 'Janata Curfew'.

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.