‘Mithun Rai is the best; deity warned me in my dream’: Poojary’s U-turn after a sound sleep

Mangaluru, Jun 11: City police on Thursday filed a 700-page chargesheet in connection with the arrest of Aditya Rao, 36, accused of planting an IED at Mangaluru International Airport on January 20.

The chargesheet said the bag placed near MIA entrance had a real bomb, as per the FSL report. The IED in the tin box was made of sulphur, ammonium nitrate, potassium chlorate and charcoal.

Rao, an engineer, who learnt bomb-making through online videos, had also placed a timer along with it and sharp objects such as nails and metals. However, he had not fixed wires to trigger a blast. “His intention was not to cause a blast but only to create a scare,” said sources.

The bomb was made in less than two weeks. However, it had taken Rao several days to procure raw materials. Police had completed the chargesheet process in April.

Udupi, Jul 14: Abhijna Rao, a student of Vidyodaya PU College, Udupi, has emerged state topper in the science stream of II PUC. 

Abhijna has secured 596 marks in the II PUC examination-2020, the results of which were announced on Tuesday July 14. She scored a perfect 100 marks in Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics and Computer Science (PCMC). In Sanskrit and English she scored 100 and 96 marks respectively.

She had secured second position in the Karnataka SSLC examinations two years ago.

She is daughter of Asha Rao and Vittal Rao, a retired professor. Her sister Raksha Rao has completed Engineering from NITK Suratkal.

“After securing second rank in the state in SSLC, my target was to score more in PUC examinations. My parents and lecturers have supported me in my studies. All my teachers gave me proper guidance. Vidyodaya College also supported me. I was studying on a daily basis. The exams were easy and I had expected to score above 590. I am very happy to score 596," she said.

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.