IMD issues heavy rainfall alert for coastal Karnataka, Kerala

Bengaluru, Feb 12: Mohammed Nalapad, son of Karnataka Congress MLA NA Harris, who allegedly rammed his sports car into vehicles and a kiosk, injuring 4, on Bellary road in Bengaluru on February 9, said that he was not in the car which met with the accident.

Bengaluru Joint Commissioner of Police, Traffic, Ravikante Gowda told media, "Mohammed Nalapad appeared before the investigating officer today. He was arrested following interrogation. We are collecting evidence and will file a charge sheet shortly."

Nalapad is out on bail, in connection with the matter where he had assaulted a man in a pub in Bengaluru in 2018.

"I was not in the car which met with accident. I was travelling in a Lamborghini car which was moving ahead of the car. However, I called people to rescue the victims. We took them to the hospital and paid their hospital bill," said Mohammed Nalapad.

Further, details are awaited

Also Read: MLA N A Harris’ son Nalapad, out on bail, now crashes his luxury Bentley car, injures 4

Tumkuru, Feb 26: A man was arrested from Azad Nagar area of Anantpur on Wednesday for making derogatory remarks against Prophet Mohammed and posting it on social media earlier this month, police said.

He was identified as Atul Kumar alias Madhugiri Modi, a resident of Madhugiri’s Hobali Honnapur village.

According to Superintendent of Police Vamshikrishna teams had been formed to arrest the accused following protests against his video and remarks against Prophet Mohammed in Tumkuru and Madhugiri,

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.