Two killed in gang attack at Farangipet; three others injured

Bengaluru, Jul 3: Karnataka on Friday reported its biggest single day spike of 1,694 new COVID-19 cases, taking the taking the total number of infections in the state to 19,710, the Health department said.
The state also recorded 21 fatalities pushing the number of deaths to 293.

The day also saw 471 patients getting discharged after recovery; even as 201 patients in the state were undergoing treatment in ICU. Of the 1,694 fresh cases reported on Friday, a whopping 994 cases were from Bengaluru Urban alone.

As of July 3 evening, cumulatively 1,9710 COVID-19 positive cases have been confirmed in the state, which includes 293 deaths and 8,805 discharges, the Health department said in its bulletin.

It said, out of 10,608 active cases, 10,407 patients are in isolation at designated hospitals and are stable, while 201 are in ICU.

The 21 dead include five from Bengaluru Urban, three each from Chikkaballapura and Kalaburagi, two each from Vijayapura and Shivamogga and one each from Ballari, Hassan, Davangere, Bidar, Raichur and Bengaluru Rural.

Out of 21, fourteen are men between the age 48-87 years, and seven women between 25-75 years.

Those dead include those with the history of Severe Acute Respiratory Infection (SARI), Influenza-like illness (ILI), inter-state and inter-district travel and cardiac patients.

The contact history of at least four dead people is under tracing.

Out of 1,694 positive cases on Friday, contacts of the majority of the cases are still under tracing.

Among the districts where the new cases were reported, Bengaluru Urban accounted for 994, followed by 97 from Ballari

and Dakshina Kannada, Kalaburagi 72, Tumakuru 57, Bengaluru Rural 44, Dharwad 38, Mysuru 35, Mandya 33, Bidar 28, Chamarajanagara 24, Shivamogga 23, Gadag 19, sixteen each from Udupi and Kodagu, Yadgir 14, thirteen each from Hassan and Belagavi, Kolar 11.

Bengaluru Urban district tops the list of positive cases, with a total of 7,173 infections, followed by Kalaburagi (1,560) and Udupi (1,258). Among discharges, Kalaburagi tops the list with 1,143 followed by Udupi (1,093) and Yadgir (855).

A total of 6,71,934 samples have been tested so far, out of which 18,307 were tested on Friday alone.

So far 6,35,582 samples have been reported as negative, and out of them 16,290 were reported negative on Friday.

Hubballi,  Jul 25: South Western Railway (SWR) inducted seven lady sub-inspectors (SI) in the Railway Protection Force (RPF), in a first, on Friday. Three more women SI undergoing training in Lucknow are expected to join SWR soon.

According to the Chief Public Relations Officer (CPRO) of SWR, the inducted sub-inspectors are part of 164 women SI cadets who passed out of the RPF training centre in Moula Ali, Hyderabad, after a rigorous training of nine months. They will take care of the security of railway passengers, Railway property, and Railway premises, after resuming their duties.

They will also be responsible for giving special care to the vulnerable sections of society, women, and children while discharging their duties, the CPRO said.

The CPRO also informed that the newly admitted female SIs will be posted to major stations on SWR for regular duties on completion of their two months of practical training over the Zone. Further 120 ladies are undergoing constables training for various training centres across India.

This move is considered a step forward into women empowerment in Railways.

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.