With 45 fresh cases, Karnataka’s covid-19 tally reaches 1032; 3-yr-old child among infected

Bengaluru, Sep 28: The Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing charges against arrested Karnataka BJP MLA N. Munirathna Naidu, including allegations of rape, honey-trapping, and other offences, on Saturday conducted raids at his residence and 15 other locations across the city.

Sources confirmed that the raids were taking place at his Vyalikaval residence and other properties owned by the BJP MLA. The operation is being conducted by the SIT under the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) led by ACP Kavitha.

The team is examining documents, electronic devices, and other materials related to the rape and honey-trapping case. The SIT is being supported by experts from the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), with Superintendent of Police (SP) Sowmya Latha also participating in the search and inspection at Munirathna’s Vyalikaval residence.

According to sources, the raids were triggered by information provided by the victim, who alleged that Munirathna recorded footage of sexual assaults and used it to blackmail politicians and public servants, including IAS and IPS officers.

The victim reportedly revealed that she was used to entrap the woman who had lodged a rape case against a senior IFS officer. She was allegedly instructed to frame the rape victim in a drug peddling case.

The complainant told police that she was tasked with capturing compromising videos of the rape victim who had filed the case against the IFS officer. She claimed that, after several failed attempts to obtain the videos, the victim was drugged with sleeping pills, and obscene footage was recorded without her consent. Later, the IFS officer was bailed out from the charges.

Furthermore, the complainant has accused MLA Munirathna of raping her at his office within the state legislature, in his official vehicle, and at his godown. She has alleged that he recorded videos of these assaults.

Police sources also revealed that the victim in the MLA's case provided details of a plot involving sending HIV-infected women to Munirathna's targets in an attempt to ruin them politically and personally. She also disclosed the names of several politicians whom she had entrapped through honey-trapping.

The woman further claimed that Munirathna had threatened to have her son kidnapped and killed if she refused to comply with his demands. According to her, the MLA had a well-organised team dedicated to carrying out these honey-trapping operations, and she provided details about his close associates and relatives involved in the scheme.

Munirathna, who was in judicial custody following his arrest in the rape and honey-trap case, has now been taken into the custody of the SIT.

The MLA was transferred from Bengaluru Central Jail to the CID office on the night of September 24. The BJP legislator, however, has denied all the allegations, claiming they are false.

Karnataka Congress leader D.K. Suresh had alleged that Munirathna was trying to infect his adversaries with HIV and that the government should investigate the matter.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court today sought a report from the Karnataka High Court over controversial remarks made by Justice Vedavyasachar Srishananda during a recent court hearing.

Justice Srishananda, while addressing a landlord-tenant dispute, referred to a Muslim-majority area in Bengaluru as "Pakistan" and made a misogynistic comment involving a woman lawyer. 

A five-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, along with Justices S Khanna, B R Gavai, S Kant, and H Roy, expressed the need for establishing clear guidelines for constitutional court judges regarding their remarks in court. 

The Supreme Court bench said that when social media plays an active role in monitoring and amplifying courtroom proceedings, there is an urgency to ensure judicial commentary aligns with the decorum expected from courts of law.

"Our attention has been drawn to some comments made by Karnataka High Court judge Justice V Srishananda during the conduct of judicial proceedings. We have asked the AG and SG to assist us. We ask the registrar general of the High Court to submit a report to this court after seeking administrative directions from the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court. This exercise may be carried out in 2 weeks," the top court directed.

Videos of Justice Srishanananda have gone viral on social media.

In one video, he refers to a Muslim-dominated locality in Bengaluru as "Pakistan" and on another video he was seen making objectionable comments against a woman lawyer. In the second incident, Justice Srishanananda can be heard telling the woman lawyer that she seemed to know a lot about the "opposition party", so much so that she might be able to reveal the colour of their undergarments.

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday dismissed the petition filed by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah against Governor Thawarchand Gehlot's decision to sanction the complaint and investigation against him in the alleged Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) scam case.

Justice M Nagaprasanna said the facts narrated in the petition would undoubtedly require an investigation.

The court has also said that the Governor's order approving sanction to investigate against Siddaramaiah under section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act does not suffer from application of mind, instead has abundance of application of mind.

Meanwhile, the court rejected the request made by senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi to stay the order of the court. The court has vacated the interim order passed on August 19. In the interim order the trial court was directed not to take any precipitative action against Siddaramaiah. On August 17, Governor had approved sanction under section 17 A  of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 218 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNSS), citing three applications.

The court said the private complainants were justified in registering the complaint and seeking approval from the governor.

Insofar as private complainants seeking sanction under section 17A, the court said the provision nowhere requires only a police officer to seek sanction from a competent authority. The court further said it is in fact the duty of the private complainants to seek such approval.

Earlier, The High Court had completed its hearing in the case on September 12, and reserved its orders. It had also directed a special court in Bengaluru to defer further proceedings and not to take any precipitative action against the Chief Minister.

The case pertains to allegations that compensatory sites were allotted to Siddaramaiah's wife B M Parvathi in an upmarket area in Mysuru that had higher property value as compared to the location of her land that had been "acquired" by MUDA.