Ready for any test; will quit Mutt if charges against me are proven: Pejawar seer

With an aim to provide water to stray animals in Mangaluru, an animal activist announced a project 'Jal' under which free water bowls will be distributed to the people across the city.

Tauseef Ahmed believes many animals and birds do not find source to drink water which leads to death.
"Finding clean and safe drinking water has been a major issue in a lot of places. We humans when we face some scarcity we manage by taking the water out from the well," Ahmed told ANI.

"Unfortunately, that's not the case with when it comes to animals and birds. They do not find sources for water to drink so they eventually end up drinking sewage water and they fall sick. In some cases, even that is not available and due to dehydration, they die," he added.

Under the "Jal" project, Ahmed will distribute free water bowls to the people and expects them to make equal efforts in saving the lives of the animals.

"So, this project "Jal" will be providing 100 free water bowls all over Mangaluru. We are distributing it free of cost. All you have to do is keep the bowls outside in the garden or any places where animals frequently visit. Every day, we just have to fill the bowls with water for the animals. It will help a lot of animals to survive in the harsh weather of summers," Ahmed highlighted.

"We have used cement to make the bowls which will keep the eater really cool. We are spending close to 74 rs per bowl. We have made around 100 bowls and will continue making it. We are trying to cover as many animals as we can," he said.

Mangaluru, Feb 25: Notorious gangster Ravi Poojary,

who has been extradited to India from Senegal, has 34 cases registered against him within the city police commissionerate.

Now in Bengaluru police custody for interrogation in connection with several cases there, Poojary faces cases relating to murder, murder attempt, extortion and threat calls in the city, police sources said.

Sources said the city police are trying to get Pujari for interrogation though it would take a while as the court has allowed Bengaluru police to keep him in custody for questioning and evidence taking for 15 days.

Most of the cases in the city against him, 28 of them, are in connection with threat calls.

He had allegedly made threat calls in 2015 to the then state ministers B Ramanath Rai and Abhayachandra Jain, demanding immediate arrest of the accused in the murder of Bajrang Dal worker Prashanth Poojary.

All the cases against Poojary in the city were registered between 2007 and 2018.

Cases involving murder, death threats and shootouts are among the cases to be investigated, the sources said.

A total of 28 cases of death threat calls, one of murder, three of shootouts, one of abduction and a case of funding his associates lodged in prison are the crimes being probed by the city police.

The cases are now pending in courts at different stages of trial.

Cases of making threat calls to businessmen using his associates demanding protection money have been registered at Moodbidri, Kavoor, Kadri, Konaje, Barke and Urwa police stations.

Some of his associates were imprisoned in 2012 in connection with threat calls to a businessman from Kinnigoli.

The case relating to providing them money while in prison was also registered in the same year.

Pujari, wanted in many cases including extortion and murder in different parts of the country, including Karnataka and who had been on the run for over 15 years, was deported to Senegal following his arrest and later extradited

He had jumped bail in Senegal last year after being arrested there.

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.