Nalin Kumar Kateel replaces BSY as Karnataka BJP chief

Bengaluru, Jan 31: Senior IPS officer Praveen Sood is the new Head of Police Force in Karnataka as the current DG and IG Neelamani Raju today retired.

Praveen Sood, the DIG of CID’s Economic Offences Wing, introduced several reforms that sped up investigation processes. He introduced the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network System all over the state by networking all police stations in the country and ensuring data entry and retrieval of all information in police stations and higher police officers online.

Born in 1964, Sood graduated from IIT Delhi and joined the Indian Police Service in 1986. He kicked off his career as the Assistant Superintendent of Police in Mysuru in 1989. He has served as the SP of Ballari and Raichur before being posted as the Deputy Police Commissioner (Law and Order) of Bengaluru.

In 1999, he served as the police officer on foreign deputation as the police advisor to the Government of Mauritius for 3 years.  He was posted as Police Commissioner of Mysuru City between 2004 and 2007.

He took over as the Additional Commissioner of Police (Traffic) in Bengaluru in 2008 and continued in the post till 2011. He has won the Chief Minister’s Gold Medal for excellence in service in 1996, the Police Medal for Meritorious Service in 2002  and the President’s Police Medal in 2011.

During 2013-14 he took over as Managing Director of Karnataka State Police Housing Corporation. He later worked as the Principal Secretary to the Home  Department as the Additional Director General of Police (Karnataka State Reserve Police) and the ADGP of Administration.

In 2017, he was appointed the Bengaluru Police Commissioner. He was also instrumental in launching “Suraksha” App and “Pink Hoyasalas” managed by all-women police officers.

As the DIG of the CID, Economic offences and Special Units, he is credited for opening the Centre for Cyber-crime Investigation, Training and Research for training police officers, prosecutors and the judiciary in handling cyber crime cases.

The Department of Preuniversity Education, Karnataka has declared the board exams or pre university I exam results. To get results online, the students need to log on to result.bspucpa.com and have to provide their registration number and date of birth. 
Apart from the online portal, the students will get the results via mail or SMS.

“The results of the first year Pre-University Examinations will be announced on May 5. The results will be sent directly to students. Hence, colleges will not be displaying the results,” said S Suresh Kumar, Primary and Secondary Education Minister. 

The pre-university course of PUC is a two-year course including class 11 and class 12 called PUC I and PUC II. It is based on PUC score that candidates can get admission to varsities.

Earlier, the Karnataka PUC 1 result was to be announced on March 27 which was postponed and hence the revised dates are announced now.

The board exam results have been put on halt due to the nation-wide lockdown imposed after the coronavirus pandemic gripped India. As of May 3, the number of people infected by the coronavirus in India had crossed over 40,000.

The HRD Minister Ramesh Pokhriyal Nishank had in a meeting asked state and central boards to resume their evaluation process and declare the results to curb any further delay in the academic cycle. The academic cycle has been delayed by over a month due to the coronavirus. Now, the colleges will start by September instead of July.

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.