Politicians are like 'Dasaiahs,' says CM

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, May 3: Erection of barricades and drawing up of boxes or circles aimed at maintaining social distancing were seen in front of liquor shops in different parts of Karnataka on Sunday, a day ahead of their reopening after a gap of over 40-days, due to the lockdown.

Karnataka Excise Commissioner on Saturday had ordered that only CL-2 (retail shops) and CL-11C (state-run retail shops like Mysore Sales International Limited) would open from May 4.

It had permitted liquor sale liquor between 9 am and 7 pm only in areas that are outside COVID-19 containment zones.

Reports of barricades being erected to ensure that people stand in line and drawing of boxes or circles in front of shops to maintain social distancing in front of retail and MSIL shops have emerged from across the state, including the state capital.

Also reports about shop keepers doing special poojas outside liquor shops in Kolar and some even illuminating their outlets with lights from outside have surfaced from other parts of the state.

Meanwhile, officials were engaged in checking stocks ahead of the shops opening on Monday morning.

"We are making all preparations to ensure that government rules are followed. We also seek the cooperation of the people and police," the manager of a shop said.

Another said there may be a rush initially, after which things may get back to normal.

"We expect things to go on smoothly," he added.

Calling for number of customers to be limited to five at a time while ensuring that they maintain social distancing of not less than six feet distance, the order states that customers and the staff will have to wear masks and sanitizers should be used at the shops.

Only stand alone CL-2 and CL-11C shops are allowed to commence liquor sale and not those at malls and super markets, it said.

Officials in Bengaluru said liquor sale is prohibited in 26 containment zones in the city, while in other places rules that have been prescribed need to be followed.

In case of any violation, strict action would be taken, including imposing of penalty, they said.

There was pressure on the government to kick start economic activities, including allowing sale of liquor, to boost the state's finances as excise is the key area which generates revenue.

State Excise Minister H Nagesh had recently pegged the losses at Rs 60 crore per day because of closure of liquor shops, due to the lockdown.

Bengaluru, Feb 19: Pointing out that there was a deliberate attempt to cover up police excesses by implicating innocent persons at whim, the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday granted conditional bail to 21 people who were accused by police of involving in violence during the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in Mangaluru.

Allowing the bail petitions of Ashik and 20 others from Udupi and Dakshina Kannada districts, Justice John Michael Cunha said the overzealousness of the police is also evident from the fact that FIRs were registered under Section 307 of IPC against the persons killed by the police themselves.

“In an offence involving a large number of people, the identity and participation of each accused must be fixed with reasonable certainty. In the present cases, the identity appears to have been fixed on the basis of their affiliation to PFI and they being members of the Muslim community. Though it is stated that the involvement of the petitioners is captured in CCTV footage and photographs, no such material is produced before the court showing the presence of any of the petitioners at the spot, armed with deadly weapons,” the judge noted.

In the statement of objections filed by the State Public Prosecutor-I, it was stated that there was a hint of Muslim youths holding protest on December 19, 2019, opposing the implementation of CAA. Prohibitory orders were clamped in that connection. This assertion indicated that the common object of the assembly was to oppose the implementation of CAA and National Register for Citizens (NRC) which, by itself, was not an “unlawful object”, the judge pointed out.

‘Pics show cops throwing stones at crowd’

Justice Cunha also said the material collected by the investigators did not contain any specific evidence regarding the presence of any of the petitioners at the spot. On the other hand, omnibus allegations were made against the Muslim crowd of 1,500-2,000, alleging that they were armed with weapons like stones, soda bottles and glass pieces. The photographs produced by the SPP depicted that hardly any member of the crowd were armed with weapons, except one of them holding a bottle. In none of these photographs, police station or policemen were seen in the vicinity, the judge noted.

“On the other hand, photographs produced by the petitioners show that the policemen themselves were pelting stones at the crowd. The petitioners have produced copies of the complaints lodged by the dependants of the deceased who died due to police firing and the endorsement made thereon reveals that even though the law required the police to register independent FIRs in view of the specific complaint made against the police officers making out cognizable offences, the police have failed to register FIRs. This goes to show that a deliberate attempt is underway to cover up police excesses by implicating innocent persons at the whims and caprice of the police,” the judge observed.

In the wake of counter-allegations against the police and in the backdrop of their failure to register FIRs based on complaints lodged by the families of victims, the possibility of false and mistaken implication could not be ruled out, the judge said. In these circumstances, it would be a travesty of justice to deny bail to the petitioners and sacrifice their liberties to the mercy of the district administration and police. The records indicate that a deliberate attempt has been made to trump up evidence and to deprive the liberties of the petitioners by fabricating evidence. None of the petitioners have any criminal antecedents, the court said.

“The allegations levelled against the petitioners are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. There is no direct evidence to connect them with the alleged offence. The investigation appears to be malafide and partisan. In the circumstances, in order to protect the rights and liberties of the petitioners, it is necessary to admit them to bail,” the judge said.

The petitioners were arrested and remanded in judicial custody after the anti-CAA protests on charges of being members of an unlawful assembly, armed with lethal weapons, attempting to set fire to the North Police Station in Mangaluru, obstructing the police from discharging their duties and causing damage to public property, etc., on December 19 in violation of the prohibitory orders. They moved the High Court as their bail pleas had been rejected by a sessions court in Dakshina Kannada.