Speeding Maruti Omni kills 30-yr-old woman while crossing road

Bengaluru, May 5: A 62-year-old woman from Vijayapura succumbed to coronavirus infection on Tuesday, taking the COVID-19 death toll in Karnataka to 28, a health official said.

The state has registered eight more COVID-19 cases in the past 19 hours, increasing the count of such cases to 659, the official added.

"Positive case 640, 62-year-old female resident of Vijayapura died on Tuesday due to cardiac arrest," the health official said.

Admitted to a designated hospital''s ICU on Sunday, the woman was also suffering from Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), Bronchial Asthma (BA) and complained of breathlessness.

Among the eight fresh cases that emerged in the state, four were contacts of earlier cases, two with Influenza Like Illness (ILI) and one with travel history to Uttarakhand.

The health department is also tracing the contact history of a 30-year-old woman from Bengaluru Urban.

Incidentally, no new cases emerged from Davangere as 22 cases rocked the district on Monday.

Among the new cases, Bengaluru Urban contributed 3, followed by Bagalkote, 2, Ballari, Dakshina Kannada and Bhatkal in Uttara Kannada, 1 each.

Of the new cases, six are men and two women.

Kalaburagi, Mar 5: Kalaburagi Police has issued a second notice to AIMIM leader Waris Pathan, for his controversial remark, directing him to appear before the Investigation Officer on March 8 and give his statement.

Earlier, Kalaburagi Police Commissioner MM Nagaraj said that the police had served notice to Pathan and asked him to appear on February 29 before Investigation Officer.

On February 20, while addressing an anti-CAA rally at Kalaburagi, Pathan had said, "time has now come for us to unite and achieve freedom. Remember we are 15 crore but can dominate over 100 crores."

However, Pathan later took back his words and had said he had not targeted any community but had spoken against members of some organisations.

"If any of my words have hurt someone, I take them back as I am a true Indian," he had said.

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.