Siddaganga seer undergoes liver stent surgery

Mangaluru, Jul 9: The coastal district of Dakshina Kannada today recorded death of two coronavirus patients.

Meanwhile, the district today also recorded 167 new covid cases taking the total number of cases to 1701.

Yesterday, the district had recorded 183 cases. Today more cases were reported from Bantwal and Ullal regions. 

According to sources, a 48-year-old man from Boloor, who was under treatment for covid-19 at designated covid hospital passed away today. 

A 62-year-old covid patient, who had SARI symptoms, breathed his last at a private hospital.

With this, the total number of deaths of covid-19 patients in the district reached 30 including two deaths caused by other reasons.

Of the 167 who tested positive on Thursday, 110 are males and 57 females including seven children.

Three have returned from Qatar and Dubai, one from Bengaluru, 42 are diagnosed with influenza-like illness (ILI), six are diagnosed with severe acute respiratory illness (SARI) and 64 are primary contacts of earlier patients. Contact tracing process of 38 patients is on, and 13 pre-surgery samples.

Bengaluru, Feb 27: A notorious history-sheeter named Slum Bharath was killed in an encounter with the police here in the wee hours of Thursday.

According to police, Bharath's associates attacked the police vehicle carrying him at around 2 am and fired two rounds at officers and police officials.

Bharath managed to flee with his associates in a car. 

He was later nabbed after the special team was informed at around 5 am that the accused's car was moving towards Hesaragatta near Soladevanahalli.

Bharath succumbed after he was shot by senior police officer Venkataramanappa who responded to his open firing. He was the prime accused in the murder of history-sheeter Srinivas alias Kulla Seena in 2006.

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.