Now, prisoners in Kerala gear up to run fuel stations

Kochi, Jul 12: The two main accused in Kerala gold smuggling case, Swapna Suresh and Sandeep Nair have been arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA). Both the accused will be produced before NIA court in Kochi, Kerala on Sunday.

Swapna Suresh and Sandeep Nair were detained by NIA from Bengaluru, Karnataka on Saturday.

Swapna is named as the second accused and Sandeep has been named as the fourth accused in the FIR taken by NIA and both have been slapped with Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, (UAPA) along with first accused Sarith PS and third accused Fazil Fareed
Already, Sarith PS was arrested by the Customs, while Fazil Fareed is still at large. 

NIA officials yesterday conducted a detailed interrogation of Sarith after reaching the customs office in Kochi where he is in custody.

The Customs Department had on July 5 seized 30 kg gold worth Rs 15 crore concealed in diplomatic consignment at the Thiruvananthapuram international airport.

The NIA on Friday registered a First Information Report (FIR) against Sarith Kumar, Swapna Suresh and Sandeep Nair, the three persons allegedly involved in the case.

The agency has charged them with offences under various sections of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.

Swapna Suresh was on the run following the gold seizure. She was employed in Space Park and Kerala State Information Technology Infrastructure Limited (KSITL), which comes under the IT department, a portfolio held by Kerala Chief Minister. She was ousted after being named an accused in the case.

Sarith Kumar, an accused in the case who had previously worked as a public relations officer (PRO) in UAE Consulate-General's office in Thiruvananthapuram, was arrested on July 6.

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.