None was there for her? Catholic nun commits suicide

New Delhi, Jan 20: Security has been beefed up at airports across the country after a suspicious bag was found at the Mangaluru airport on Monday.

According to Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), which guards the airports in the country, a man was captured in the CCTV dropping the bag inside Mangaluru airport.

According to the CISF DIG Anil Pandey, traces of improvised explosive device (IED) have been found from the bag.

"According to CCTV footage, a suspect kept the bag at Mangaluru airport and was then seen leaving in auto while concealing his face. The suspected object was detected timely and local bomb disposal team is working on its disposal," DIG Pandey told media.

"We have found traces of IED from a bag lying at a ticket counter in Mangaluru airport, we have safely evacuated it," DIG Pandey told media.

According to sources, initial investigations have revealed that the bag contained some type of black powder.

"Initial investigation has revealed that the bag contained a black powder which seems to be explosive, though it is yet to be cleared what kind of explosive it is," sources claimed.

"After we found the suspicious bag at Mangaluru airport, a security drill has been initiated at all the airports and CISF staff have been asked to beef up security," DIG Pandey said.

Also Read: IED recovered from Mangaluru Airport defused safely; 3 teams formed to nab suspect: Top cop

Kalaburagi, Jan 21: A team of bomb disposal squad along with sniffer dog visited Kalaburagi Railway Station on Tuesday morning.

In the wake of the bomb found at Mangalore Airport on Monday morning, the team visited the railway station as a precautionary measure.

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.