U T Khader assures to expedite efforts for Mangaluru-Riyadh direct flight

Bengaluru, Mar 5: Flipkart co-founder Sachin Bansal's wife Priya Bansal has filed a dowry harassment case against the entrepreneur at Kormangala police station in Bengaluru, sources said.

Priya alleged that ahead of their wedding, her father had spent Rs 50 lakh for the arrangements and given Rs 11 lakh in cash to Sachin instead of a car. Further, she has also alleged that Sachin has been pressurising her to transfer all the properties that were in her name to him. However, after refusing to do so her in-laws started harassing her.

A First Information Report (FIR) has been filed against Sachin and three others at Kormangala police station in Bengaluru.

The police are investigating the matter.

Further details awaited.

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.

Yadgir, Jan 21: A bag was found abandoned at the Yadgir Bus Stand on Tuesday morning that left the commuters in panic.

After receiving the information, a police team, along with a sniffer dog, rushed to the spot. When the bag was checked, the police found clothes and cash in it.

It is stated that a passenger might have left the bag in a hurry to catch the bus.