Praveen Togadia's cousin brother, two others stabbed to death in Gujarat

Hosapete, Jan 6: Tension prevailed at Chalavadikeri here on Monday as residents prevented BJP leaders and workers from entering the locality for propaganda on Citizenship (Amendment) Act and shouted slogans against them.

On receipt of the information about the arrival of the BJP leaders, the residents of the locality gathered at the entrance of the lane and displayed black flag besides shouting slogan-go back, go back.

The people told the BJP workers not enter their vicinity when the workers stated them that they will distribute pamphlets only.

The police who arrived at the spot are trying their best to pacify the irate locals. More number of people belonging to Muslim and Dalit communities are residing in the area.

Chikkamagaluru, May 9: A young Hindu activist allegedly killed his brother at Beeranahalli in Tarikere taluk of Chikkamagaluru district in Karnataka over a board game dispute.

The accused has been identified as 26-year-old Kiran and the victim is his 29-year-old brother Arun, said police.

According to police, the duo were playing a board game on Thursday and they had placed a bet of Rs 500. 

After Arun won the game, he asked for the money and Kiran refused to yield, which lead to an argument. 

In a fit of rage, an intoxicated Kiran hit his brother and when the latter fell unconscious and dragged him on to the road.

Arun was immediately rushed to McGann Hospital in Shivamogga. However, he died on Thursday night, said police.

A case was registered at the Lakkavalli Police Station.

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.