Two killed in gang attack at Farangipet; three others injured

Mangaluru, Jun 19: Mohammad Haneef Guddemane, a cattle trader, who was thrashed by the miscreants of Bajrang Dal while legally transporting cattle last weekend, today appeared before media and demanded appropriate action against the assailants.

The attack took place on June 14 at Urwa in the city when he was transporting four buffalos along with all necessary documents. The attack was also captured on a CCTV camp. 

The victim, who addressed a press conference today, said that it was not the first time he is transporting cattle as into animal and husbandry for years. 

“I had bought 10 she-buffaloes on June 13 from Ranennur and obtained certificate from the local government veterinary doctor after which the animals were brought to my village,” said Haneef, who is a resident of Jokatte on the outskirts of the city. 

He said that he was transporting four out of the ten she buffaloes he had bought to the slaughterhouse at Mangaluru on June 14 when a gang of around 15 members which intercepted his vehicles near Urwa police station dragged him out of the vehicle, rained abusive words at him, made blasphemous remarks about his religion, and hit him with a helmet besides kicking him. 

He said that three of the assailants were armed with sabre, iron rod and wooden sticks. 

"They also tied me to the vehicle and assaulted. They also attacked me with their arms but I escaped. Their plan was to kill me. Fortunately, the police reached the spot and the assailants escaped. However, they thoroughly damaged my vehicle and robbed Rs 7,800 I had with me. I got treated at Highland Hospital in the city," he stated.

Expressing shock over the soft corner approach of the police towards the assailants, he said that only six of around 15 attackers were booked by the police. 

“All the accused were let off by the police after registering petty cases. Ironically, the police had not recorded my statement. On the day of attack, they had asked me to sign on a paper. It contained the complaint written by themselves. Hence, on June 17 I visited the Urwa police station and recorded my statement,” he said.

He said that even though he has all the documents pertaining to the cattle that he had purchased, the police had registered false cattle theft charge against him. 

Former city mayor K Ashraf, Hyder, bother of the victim and Shamsuddin, Jokatte gram panchayat vice president were present at the press meet.

Also Read: Mangaluru: Bajrang Dal men thrash cattle trader after waylaying buffalo-laden vehicle

Bengaluru, Mar 11: The Insurance Regulatory Authority of India has asked insurers to settle all claims related to coronavirus expeditiously under existing health policies that provide for treatment of hospitalisation expenses.

It has also asked insurers to design products covering the cost of treatment of coronavirus that has fast spread across the world and also resulted in increasing number of infections in India. There has been over 3,000 deaths globally and 58 cases tested positive in India.

In order to provide need-based health insurance coverage, insurers are intro ducing products for various specific diseases, including vector borne diseases. "For the purpose of meeting health insurance requirements of various sections, insurers are advised to design products covering the costs of treatment for coronavirus," the IRDAI said in a circular.

The regulator said that under existing health insurance policies where hospitalisation is covered, not only the cases related to coronvirus disease (COVID-19) shall be expeditiously handled, but all the costs of admissible medic al expenses during the course of treatment, including the treatment during quarantine period, should be settled in accordance to the applicable terms and conditions of policy contract and the extant regulatory framework.

This would bring much needed relief to policy holders some of whom were facing difficulty in getting coverage for treatment takers to coronavirus. In the absence of clear information, a few hospitals were reportedly denying for forward such claims of policy holders to the insurers.

IRDAI has now said that all the claims reported under COVID-19 shall be thoro ughly reviewed by review committee before repudiating the claims. This would prevent blanket rejection of such claims.

But to get full claim for treatment of coronavirus, industry experts said, a person should be hospitalised at least for 24 hours. Most insurers do not c over outpatient treatment.

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.