BJP demands U T Khader's resignation over Ullal murder

Bengaluru, Feb 19: Pointing out that there was a deliberate attempt to cover up police excesses by implicating innocent persons at whim, the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday granted conditional bail to 21 people who were accused by police of involving in violence during the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in Mangaluru.

Allowing the bail petitions of Ashik and 20 others from Udupi and Dakshina Kannada districts, Justice John Michael Cunha said the overzealousness of the police is also evident from the fact that FIRs were registered under Section 307 of IPC against the persons killed by the police themselves.

“In an offence involving a large number of people, the identity and participation of each accused must be fixed with reasonable certainty. In the present cases, the identity appears to have been fixed on the basis of their affiliation to PFI and they being members of the Muslim community. Though it is stated that the involvement of the petitioners is captured in CCTV footage and photographs, no such material is produced before the court showing the presence of any of the petitioners at the spot, armed with deadly weapons,” the judge noted.

In the statement of objections filed by the State Public Prosecutor-I, it was stated that there was a hint of Muslim youths holding protest on December 19, 2019, opposing the implementation of CAA. Prohibitory orders were clamped in that connection. This assertion indicated that the common object of the assembly was to oppose the implementation of CAA and National Register for Citizens (NRC) which, by itself, was not an “unlawful object”, the judge pointed out.

‘Pics show cops throwing stones at crowd’

Justice Cunha also said the material collected by the investigators did not contain any specific evidence regarding the presence of any of the petitioners at the spot. On the other hand, omnibus allegations were made against the Muslim crowd of 1,500-2,000, alleging that they were armed with weapons like stones, soda bottles and glass pieces. The photographs produced by the SPP depicted that hardly any member of the crowd were armed with weapons, except one of them holding a bottle. In none of these photographs, police station or policemen were seen in the vicinity, the judge noted.

“On the other hand, photographs produced by the petitioners show that the policemen themselves were pelting stones at the crowd. The petitioners have produced copies of the complaints lodged by the dependants of the deceased who died due to police firing and the endorsement made thereon reveals that even though the law required the police to register independent FIRs in view of the specific complaint made against the police officers making out cognizable offences, the police have failed to register FIRs. This goes to show that a deliberate attempt is underway to cover up police excesses by implicating innocent persons at the whims and caprice of the police,” the judge observed.

In the wake of counter-allegations against the police and in the backdrop of their failure to register FIRs based on complaints lodged by the families of victims, the possibility of false and mistaken implication could not be ruled out, the judge said. In these circumstances, it would be a travesty of justice to deny bail to the petitioners and sacrifice their liberties to the mercy of the district administration and police. The records indicate that a deliberate attempt has been made to trump up evidence and to deprive the liberties of the petitioners by fabricating evidence. None of the petitioners have any criminal antecedents, the court said.

“The allegations levelled against the petitioners are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. There is no direct evidence to connect them with the alleged offence. The investigation appears to be malafide and partisan. In the circumstances, in order to protect the rights and liberties of the petitioners, it is necessary to admit them to bail,” the judge said.

The petitioners were arrested and remanded in judicial custody after the anti-CAA protests on charges of being members of an unlawful assembly, armed with lethal weapons, attempting to set fire to the North Police Station in Mangaluru, obstructing the police from discharging their duties and causing damage to public property, etc., on December 19 in violation of the prohibitory orders. They moved the High Court as their bail pleas had been rejected by a sessions court in Dakshina Kannada.

Bengaluru, Feb 12: Mohammed Nalapad, the rogue son of Karnataka Congress leader NA Harris, who is out on bail in a 2018 case of him bashing up a man at a pub, has now rammed his luxury car into vehicles, injuring four people on Bengaluru road.

The incident took place on Sunday on the Ballari Road where Nalapad was rash driving his car. The car hit a biker and an autorickshaw, injuring four people. He immediately got off his car and fled riding a friend's car.

The biker has suffered a fracture in his leg and is undergoing treatment at a hospital.

According to police, soon after the accident a man appeared before police to claim responsibility for the accident.

Ravikante Gowde, Joint Commissioner of Police said, "A man named Balakrishna came to surrender as the one who was driving the car. Investigation has, however, showed that it was Nalapad who was driving when he met with the accident. The investigating officer has issued him a notice to appear before the police."

BJP spokesperson S Prakash has said, "A case under the Goonda Act should be filed against Nalapad and the court should take cognisance of this and cancel his bail. The father has no control over son. He is a serial offender who is harming the public on a repeated basis."

Nalapad was earlier arrested in 2018 in the Bengaluru pub incident in which he and his associate bashed up the son of a prominent businessman in the city. Nalapad Harris is out on bail after remaining in judicial custody for three months in the case of attempt to murder after the 2018 midnight brawl.

Thiruvanthapuram, Feb 21: Rape-accused Bishop Franco Mulakkal has been accused of sexual abuse by another nun. Police sources say that there is at least one more nun who has given a statement of sexual assault against the bishop.

This nun is a witness in the rape case registered against Franco Mulakkal. She is the 14th witness in the case and in her statement, she said that the bishop made sexually-colored and lewd remarks to her over the phone.

As per the nun, they were in communication via phone calls, chat and video calls for a period of two years from 2015 to 2017.

In the statement, the nun said that she kept quiet as she was scared of the bishop.

In her witness statement in September 2018, she said that in 2017, the bishop visited the convent she was in and hugged and kissed her.

Police say that the witness was not ready to file a complaint against the bishop. They had alerted the police in the jurisdiction and when the team met her, she refused to file a complaint. Hence a separate case wasn't registered against Bishop Franco

The first nun of Missionaries of Jesus had accused Franco of raping her multiple times at the Kuruvilangadu convent in Kottayam. The FIR in the case was registered in June 2018.

Then after protests, Franco was arrested on September 21, 2018.

The chargesheet in the case was submitted in April 2019. In the chargesheet, Bishop Franco Mullackal has been charged under various sections of the IPC: 342 (wrongful confinement), 376 (2k) (rape on a woman incapable of giving consent), 376 (2n) (causing grievous bodily harm during rape), 376 (c) (a) 377 (unnatural offence) and 506 (1) (criminal intimidation).