Madoor Isubu arrest sheds new light on DK's underworld network

Bengaluru, Jun 20: A 56-year-old head constable, who had tested positive for the coronavirus infection a couple of days ago and was undergoing treatment, died on Saturday, police said.

The deceased, attached to the Kalasipalya police station, was being treated at Victoria Hospital here, they said.

This the second death of a policeman in the state due to COVID-19. The first one was an assistant sub-inspector attached to the V V Puram traffic police station.

Officials said the deceased constable was among nine others who had tested positive for COVID-19.

Meanwhile, an ASI with the Wilson Garden traffic police station here has also reportedly tested positive. According to sources, the ASI is undergoing treatment at a designated hospital and the station has been sanitised. His contacts are being quarantined. 

Bengaluru, Jan 10: Education technology company Byju’s is learnt to have raised $200 million in a funding round from Tiger Global Management, which has valued the Bengaluru-based start-up at around $8 billion, making it the third-largest unicorn (start-up valued over $1 billion) in the country.

With this, the Byju Raveendran-founded company has seen over 50 per cent jump in its valuation in just around nine months. In March 2019, Byju’s was valued $5.4 billion, when it raised around $31 million from General Atlantic, and Chinese investment giant Tencent.

At the current valuation, Byju’s has now replaced home-grown cab-hailing major Ola as the third-largest unicorn, next only to Paytm and OYO, which are valued around $16 billion and $10 billion, respectively.

Byju’s confirmed the transaction through a press statement, though the company declined to share any specific details of the deal. Tiger Global could not be immediately reached for its comments.

“We are happy to partner with a strong investor like Tiger Global Management. They share our sense of purpose and this partnership will advance our long-term vision of creating an impact by changing the way students learn,” said Raveendran. “This partnership is both a validation of the impact created by us so far and a vote of confidence for our long-term vision.”

This is Tiger Global’s first investment in the edutech space in India after Vendantu, an online tutoring platform, where it, along with WestBridge Capital, led a $42-million round in August.

An early backer of India’s internet growth story, the New York-headquartered Tiger Global has been a prolific investor in the Indian start-up space. Its portfolio in the country ranges from consumer focused e-commerce companies that are vital for the growth of the sector, such as Flipkart, Delhivery, Grofers, Quikr and PolicyBazaar, to mention a few.

After tasting success with Flipkart, one of its earliest investments, where it had pumped in around $1 billion, the PE major is now doubling down its focus on the Indian start-up space, under its new investment head Scott Shleifer.

Shleifer, who set up international private equity practice for Tiger Global, is said to be as aggressive deal maker like his predecessor Lee Fixel, who left the investment firm in March. Since then, Tiger has also invested in a host of technology-focused companies in diverse sectors including Ninjacart, CRED, NoBroker and Facilio to mention a few.

“Byju’s has emerged as the leader in the Indian education-tech sector. They are pioneering technology shaping the future of learning for millions of school students in India,” Shleifer was quoted in the press statement issued by the edutech firm.

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.