Udupi police arrest one for cheating, extortion; accomplice absconding

Bhopal, Mar 18: Rebel Congress MLAs from Madhya Pradesh who are staying at a resort in Bengaluru, on Wednesday said they went there voluntarily.

Issuing video messages, the rebels said they didn't want to meet senior party leader Digvijay Singh who was briefly detained near the resort this morning.

Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Kamal Nath and other leaders of the Congress have been claiming that the rebel MLAs were being held in captivity by BJP.

High drama unfolded this morning near the resort, as Singh, a two-time Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister, staged a protest accusing the police of not allowing him to meet the legislators, following which he was detained briefly and released later.

Singh, along with Karnataka Congress chief D K Shivakumar, is meeting police top brass seeking opportunity to meet the MLAs.

Singh hit out at Union Home Minister Amit Shah and Karnataka Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa, accusing them of trying to block their efforts to get in touch with the legislators.

"We have come here voluntarily on our own wish; we have got to know from some people that a few leaders from Madhya Pradesh including Digvijay Singh and some MLAs have come here. We don't want to talk to anybody," Congress rebel MLA from Sumawali Aidal Singh Kansana said in a video message.

"We have tried enough to speak with every one for the last one year, when they did not hear us for one year, what they will hear us in one day? We want to say only this that we have come here as per our wish and go back as per our wish," he added.

Another rebel MLA Govind Singh Rajput too said they have come voluntarily and don't want to meet anybody.

"We got to know that Digvijay Singh has come with a few Ministers and leaders. Unnecessarily at the gate they are saying they want to meet us. When no MLA wants to meet him, they should not be doing this. All MLAs have sent in their resignation," he said in a video message.

Currently, 22 rebel MLAs are said to be camping in the city.

These videos were shared by former Congress leader Pankaj Chaturvedi, a close confidante of BJP leader JyotiradiyaScindia.

In a video message, Bisahulal Singh (Anuppur) said Digvijay Singh had fooled them for 40 years.

"My seniority was neglected. We recognised Digvijaya Singh as our leader for 40 years but he only fooled us. We have come here voluntarily," he said.

"Rahul Gandhi had told us that my name, along with Aidal Singh Kansana (Congress MLA from Sumawali), had figured in the list of state Cabinet but they were struck off due to nepotism," he added.

Pohri MLA Suresh Dhakad said they received information on Digvijay Singh's visit on Wednesday through television channels.

"The present crisis was caused due to Digvijay only. We don't want to meet him," he said.

Karera MLA Jasmant Singh Jatav also blamed Digvijay Singh for the plight of Congress in Madhya Pradesh.

Dimni MLA Girraj Singh said they all have already resigned.

The MLAs who have issued video messages also included Manoj Choudhary (Hatpipalya), Kamlesh Jatav (Ambah), Raghuraj Kansana (Ambah), Brijendra Singh (Mungaoli), Raksha Santram Sironiya (Bhander), Munnalal Goyal (Gwalior East), Rajyavardhan Singh (Badnawar), OPS Bhadoriya (Mehgaon), Ranvir Singh Jatav (Gohad) and Hardeep Singh Dang (Suwasara).

Former ministers Tulsi Silawat (Sanver), Mahendra Singh Sisodia (Bamori), Imarati Devi (Dabra), Pradyumn Singh Tomar (Gwalior), Govind Singh (Surkhi) and Prabhuram Choudhary (Sanchi) also issued videos.

The resignations of these six former ministers were accepted by Assembly Speaker NP Prajapati while those of 16 others are on hold.

The rebel Congress MLAs held a press conference on Tuesday and claimed that 20 more party MLAs want to join them. The rebels also said that they were thinking of crossing over to the BJP in the days to come.

The Congress-ruled Madhya Pradesh has been in a political turmoil since the MLAs resigned on March 10 following the suit of Scindia, who joined the BJP on March 11.

Mangaluru, Mar 30: In continuing cases of tipplers in the southern states ending their lives due to non-availability of liquor during the lockdown, two men committed suicide in Karnataka's Dakshina Kannada district.

The two suicides were reported in Kadaba taluk on Saturday, police said.

Tomy Thomas (50), a rubber tapping labourer in an estate at Kutrupadi village of the taluk, was found hanging at his rented house on Saturday. Thomas, a native of Kottayam in Kerala, had joined at the estate here a month ago.

Local people said he was desperately moving around in the last few days asking about places where he can get liquor. He had also not reported to work in these days. The body has been kept at the mortuary of a hospital at Deralakatte.

In another incident, a 70-year old man, belonging to Kodimbala village in the taluk, allegedly hanged himself from the branch of a tree near his house at Nakur.

The deceased has been identified as Thomas, who had left his family here 30 years ago and had been working in Kerala. He had returned here only a few years back.

Sources said Thomas, an alcohol addict, was having health problems related to withdrawal. He has been living on pavements at Kadaba without going home.

Kadaba police has registered cases in connection with the two incidents.

Incidents of tipplers committing suicide have been reported in Kerala and Telangana in the past few days. Two men ended their lives in Kerala today while a 50-year old daily wage worker jumped to death from a building in Hyderabad on Friday.

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.