NIA officer Mohammad Tanzil shod dead

New Delhi, Mar 2: The bloodthirsty arsonists allegedly hired by pro-CAA politicians in the capital of India to target Muslims, did not spare even the house of a Muslim leader of BJP.

Akhtar Raza, the BJP’s minority cell vice-president for the Delhi Northeast district, is now not in a position to share his pain with anyone. 

Even the police hadn’t come to his rescue, when the mob raising “Jai Sri Ram” slogans burnt down his house at Bhagirathi Vihar Nalla Road in northeast Delhi last week. 

“They were chanting slogans. Around 7pm, they started throwing stones at us. I called for police help. But the police asked me to leave. We managed to flee before they burnt my house and destroyed everything,” Raza, who returned today to witness the destruction, told media persons. 

“Those who attacked us were not locals. They were outsiders. They managed to identify and burn down all the 19 houses belonging to Muslims in this lane,” Raza said.

Apart from all the belongings in the house of Raza, the arsonists also have burnt down six vehicles belonging to his family. 

Raza is sad that no one from BJP contacted him after the violence even though he has been serving the party and promoting its ideology for past five years. “No party leader contacted me. There was no phone call. There was no relief or special treatment or anything,” Raza said.

Interestingly, Raza is still indentifies himself as a BJP leader. “I belonged to BJP. I may continue in the party,” he said.

The locality remained tense on Sunday too. On Monday, several groups distributed relief materials among people who had queued up to collect them. In front of Raza’s house is a lane from which several bodies of innocent Muslims have been recovered.

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.

Mangaluru, Apr 13: Struck by the boredom of lockdown imposed to curb the spread of coronavirus, a 17-year old was caught on Sunday trying to sneak his friend out of his apartment complex by stuffing him inside a suitcase, police said.

"A minor, aged 17-years-old, a resident of Orchid Apartment, Balmatta invited his friend, a resident of Motisham Apartment, Pandeshwar to stay with him on April 11, Saturday," said PS Harsha, the Commissioner of Police, Mangaluru.

The friend wanted to return back to his apartment in Pandeshwar the next day but due to strict security put in place, he got inside a large trolley suitcase. Security guards at the apartment, however, got suspicious when they noticed the wobbling of the suitcase that was being wheeled to the gate.

Based on the suspicions, security personnel alerted the residents of the building and opened the suitcase from which they were shocked to find the boy's friend stepping out. Police were later called in.

A case has been registered against the two minors at the East Police station, police said adding that the duo will be produced before the Juvenile Justice Board.