Two school boys on fishing trip drown in rivulet

Bengaluru, Jan 19: Two college students have been arrested for allegedly spiking their female friend's drink and sexually assaulting her in Bengaluru.

The 19-year-old victim filed a complaint against the two accused, following which they were nabbed. In her complaint, the victim said that the two friends persuaded her to accompany them in a party where one of them allegedly spiked her drink.

Feeling unwell, she wanted to return to her PG, but the two managed to convince her to stay back at their place, where they allegedly sexually assaulted her.

"After some time one of my friends gave me something to drink and I vomited. I felt uneasy and decided to return to my PG. However, he forced me to go to his house stating that I was not in a condition to go to my PG. He convinced me saying that I can go home in the morning. I did not suspect any foul-play as he was a friend," the victim was quoted as saying by the publication.

Mangaluru, Jan 21: The city police arrested the auto driver of the auto-rickshaw allegedly used by the suspect to place the Improvised Explosive Device (IED) at Mangaluru International Airport.

The identity of the auto driver is yet to be ascertained.

The police are currently interrogating the auto driver to obtain details about the suspect, according to reports.

The IED recovered from a bag at the airport was defused in an open field by the personnel of the bomb disposal squad yesterday.

The visuals of the suspect have also been shared by the police for his identification. 

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.