'Shivakumar eyeing Karnataka Congress president post'

Mangaluru, Apr 15: Santhosh Kumar Padil, ASI attached to Mangaluru East (Kadri) Police Station, has helped two children unite with their parents in Kerala.

The children had come to Mangaluru during the holidays and could not return to their native place following the closure of border and lockdown. The two children, hailing from Manjeshwara in Kasargod district, were in the house of their relatives in Mangaladevi and were eager to join their parents.

The relatives of the children had brought the issue to the notice of the ASI and sought his help in the matter.

Dharward, Jul 25: In a shocking incident, a man reportedly killed his wife and daughter by feeding them poison and ended his life by hanging in his house. The incident took place in Dharwad on Saturday. 

The deceased have been identified as Mounesh Pattar (36), his wife Arpita (28) and their four-year-old daughter Sukruta. 

Mounesh was working in a private company in Dharwad and was depressed from the last one week fearing job loss. 

It was alleged that he might lose his job as the management decided to remove more than 40 employees due to covid -19 lockdown.

On Friday late night, he reportedly gave poison to his wife and daughter and later committed suicide by hanging self. The incident came to light on Saturday morning.

A case is registered at Sub Urban police station and further investigation is on.

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.