TV anchor tenders apology after derogatory remarks against Prophet Muhammad

Mangaluru, Jan 10: Two members of a notorious honey-trap gang that used to lure rich men using women and then extort money from them by staging fake police raid have been arrested by the Dakshina Kannada district police.

Lohith, a resident of Kushalnagara, and Sharif from Vittal, were arrested in connection with a honey-trap case registered in Uppinangady police station. Jamal, Jeevan and Naushad, who were also involved in the case, are absconding.

Police said they received information that a few people under the guise of being Kerala police, were planning to raid a resort near Uppinangady where two couples were staying.

They were informed that they would threaten and try to extort money from them. The police were tipped off about the same by their counterparts in Kerala.

Police said the accused are experts in setting honeytraps, and were involved in similar crimes since a long time. Their modus operandi was to use two women from Mangaluru to lure their intended targets.

Once they trap their target, the woman and victim are sent to resorts. They then raid the resort posing as police officials, and click pictures in compromising positions of the victim with the woman.

They threaten to release the pictures on social media or TV channels, if they fail to pay up.

Police said the accused demanded Rs 10 lakh from each victim, but they denied to pay up. Irked by this, the accused took away the victims’ belongings such as phone, money and car.

The victims who believed that the accused were police personnel, asked them to take them to the police station. Instead of taking them to the police, the accused took them to a secluded place, where they claimed that they were putting the victims under house arrest. Police have seized an SUV from the accused.

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.