CCB begins probe into Ravi Pujari’s role in lawyer Naushad Kashimji murder case

coastaldigest.com news network

June 13, 2020

Mangaluru, June 13: The Central Crime Branch of Bengaluru City Police, which is digging up old cases involving underworld gangster Ravi Pujari, has now launched a fresh probe into the murder of human rights lawyer Naushad Kashimji.

Kashimji was gunned down on April 9, 2009 at the basement of his apartment in Falnir in Mangaluru. Ravi Pujari had allegedly ordered the hit.

As part of investigation, a team from Benglauru CCB has come to Mangaluru. CCB sleuths, who obtained Pujari’s police custody in connection with this case, are tying up the loose ends pertaining to the murder of Kashimji who was representing D-Company hitman Abdul Rashid Hassan Malbari aka Malbari.

Pujari was said to be unhappy over Kashimji representing Malbari. Pujari had also allegedly issued life threats, directing him to desist from doing so.

Kashimji had reportedly received more than 10 international threat calls from March 30 to April 9 (the day he was murdered). According to a senior police officer, the advocate had not informed the police or his then senior Purushottam Poojary about receiving the threat calls. “This came to light when police went through his call records later,” the officer explained.

“CCB team is primarily focusing on Pujari’s role in the advocate’s sensational murder,” a senior CCB officer handling the investigating said.

“We have also lined up other cases in which Pujari is allegedly involved, but had filed the chargesheet against him in absentia as he was then a fugitive,” the officer added. The team is now picking up threads of Pujari’s involvement cases in Dakshina Kannada, Udupi and Chikkamagaluru districts.

Pujari, currently in police custody in Bengaluru, is accused in more than 30 cases reported in Mangaluru from 2007 to 2018. Majority of the cases against Pujari pertain to extortion and extending death threats, one relating to murder, three to shootings/ abduction and one where he supplied money to his henchmen in prison. Police have filed ‘C’ report in 17 out of 28 threat call cases and ‘B’ report in one case. Rest are in different stages of trial.

Comments

Add new comment

Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.

Supreme Court raps Karnataka HC judge over ‘Pakistan’ and ‘undergarment’ remarks

News Network

September 20,2024

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.

Comments