Prof. Mahesh Chandra Guru jailed for insulting Sri Ram

New Delhi, Apr 29: Karnataka is likely to withdraw the case filed against a CRPF commando who was arrested by state police officials for alleged assault on them during COVID-19 lockdown duty in Belgaum, a charge contested by the paramilitary Central Reserve Police Force.

In a bid to diffuse the ongoing tussle between CRPF and Karnataka police, the official communication sent to CRPF headquarters on Tuesday, with the details of bail granted to CRPF jawan Sunil Sachin Sawant, stated that the issue was discussed with the DGP Karnataka and other senior state authorities with a request to withdraw the case.

According to official communication, Karnataka Director General of Police has assured top CRPF officers that the "case registered against CRPF CoBRA commando is likely to be withdrawn by the state authorities".

The communication also states that "they assured that the criminal case registered against constable of 207 CoBRA BN is likely to be withdrawn by the state authority."

A CRPF CoBRA commando was thrashed and dragged to police station barefoot by police on April 23 for allegedly violating lockdown norms and assaulting/deterring public servant from discharging his duty in Belgavi district of Karnataka. A case was also registered against him.

This is not the first time when the state is showing efforts to solve the matter amicably.

Karnataka culture and tourism minister CT Ravi had also tweeted on April 27 claiming that he had a word with two ministers including state deputy chief minister who 'confirmed that the issue will be resolved amicably'

"Unfortunate that this incident happened with a CRPF Commando and the police. I have spoken with Industries Minister @JagadishShettar and Transport Minister @LaxmanSavadi. Both have confirmed that the issue will be resolved amicably," CT Ravi had tweeted.

CRPF Additional Director General (ADG) Sanjay Arora had also written to DG showing his displeasure over the ill-treatment done by Karnataka police with CRPF jawan and had said that "Keeping in view the gravity of the incident and its impact on the relationship between the two police forces, I am desired by the Director-General CRPF to request you to kindly get the matter inquired and provide justice. We would be thankful if you could inform us of the outcome."

Arora, in his letter, had also said that Karnataka police should have informed the force before registering a case.

The CRPF CbBRA commando was on extended leave and cleaning his motorcycle in front of his house in Examba city when he was allegedly manhandled and ill-treated in front of his family members and paraded to the police station barefoot, where he was kept in chains and handcuff.

The commando was granted bail by a court on Tuesday in the matter.

Sunil Sachin Sawant has been involved in various anti-Naxals operations and is a part of the CRPF elite CoBRA force, which is famous for doing anti-Naxals operations and has eliminated hundreds of Naxals in the past few years.

Mangaluru, Jan 23: Bajpe Police on Thursday registered yet another case against the prime accused in Mangaluru International Airport case, Aditya Rao.

According to the police, a complaint was received from the officials of Indigo flight that they had to delay their flight scheduled to take off for Hyderabad at 1615 hrs after receiving a hoax call from Aditya, threatening of bomb.

They also asserted that the passengers were de-boarded from the flight and the luggages were brought back to security check again.

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.