Shah Rukh Khan quits smoking at 59, shares life lessons at birthday event

Bengaluru: Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah on Wednesday stated that speaking in favour of Pakistan is wrong and constitutes treason. However, he emphasized that an inquiry is ongoing in the case of an alleged mob lynching of a man accused of shouting "Pakistan Zindabad" in Mangaluru.

“If the slogan ‘Pakistan Zindabad’ was shouted, it is wrong, regardless of who said it. The inquiry is still underway, a case has been registered, and we will determine the appropriate action based on the report,” Siddaramaiah said in response to questions from reporters about the killing.

He reiterated, “If anyone speaks in favour of Pakistan, it is wrong. It amounts to treason.”

Home Minister G. Parameshwara confirmed that a person was “lynched” in Mangaluru and said that those arrested claimed the victim shouted "Pakistan Zindabad."

“This is under investigation. Only the arrested individuals have made this claim. Nearly 20 people have been arrested so far. The police are also verifying the identity and background of the deceased. We are taking the case very seriously,” he said, noting that several people present at the cricket match where the incident occurred are being questioned.

Responding to allegations that the police initially attempted to portray the incident as a suicide, the Home Minister said, “We have no such information. If any such discrepancies are found during the investigation, appropriate action will be taken.”

According to police, the deceased has been identified as Ashraf from Pulpalli village in Sultan Bathery Taluk, Wayanad district, Kerala.

The incident occurred during a local cricket match near the Bhatra Kallurti temple in Kudupu village, on the outskirts of Mangaluru, on April 27. Ashraf was allegedly beaten with sticks, resulting in multiple injuries that led to internal bleeding and shock. He was declared dead at the hospital.

Mangaluru, April 30: The Netravati bridge at Jeppinamogaru, which had been closed for repair works since March 19, is set to reopen for vehicular traffic from May 2, police commissioner Anupam Agrawal announced.

Officials from the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) confirmed that the bridge repairs are now complete. A new bearing has been installed in one of the bridge’s pillars, and all necessary structural maintenance has been carried out. Currently, the concrete curing process is in its final stages and is expected to conclude within the next two days, paving the way for the bridge to reopen as scheduled.

The closure of the old Netravati bridge had led to severe daily traffic congestion, as vehicles were diverted to the newly constructed parallel bridge on National Highway 66, where two-way traffic was temporarily permitted. Traffic jams were especially intense during peak morning and evening hours, causing vehicle queues that often stretched from Pumpwell and Kallapu to the Thokkottu flyover. Even emergency vehicles faced difficulties navigating through the gridlock.

To manage the situation, light vehicles heading towards Deralakatte and Konaje — or traveling towards Mangaluru from these areas — were diverted via the Harekala-Pavoor bridge. However, this alternate route also witnessed significant congestion during rush hours. As a result, many commuters, especially those traveling from Thokkottu, Talapady, and Kerala, were forced to start their journeys at least an hour earlier than usual.

The public had been urging authorities to expedite the repair works to ease traffic woes. With the bridge now ready to reopen, commuters can expect a significant improvement in traffic flow along the busy corridor from May 2 onward.

The Supreme Court Tuesday dismissed a plea by former IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt, undergoing life imprisonment in connection with a 1990 custodial death case, for bail and the suspension of his sentence. While denying him the relief, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta also directed that the hearing of his appeal be expedited.

“We are not inclined to enlarge the appellant Sanjiv Kumar Bhatt on bail. However, we make it clear that the observations made herein above are restricted to the prayer for bail only and will have no bearing on the appeals of the appellant and the co-accused. The prayers sought by the appellant, Sanjiv Kumar Bhatt, for the grant of bail are dismissed. Hearing of the appeal is directed to be expedited,” Justice Mehta said while reading out the order.

The case dates back to 1990 when Bhatt was posted as the additional superintendent of police in Gujarat’s Jamnagar. He had detained around 133 people under the stringent Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) (TADA) Act during a communal riot in Jamjodhpur town.

On November 18, 1990, one of those detained, Prabhudas Vaishnani, died in a hospital after he was released, allegedly due to torture while he was in custody. A complaint of custodial death was registered against seven policemen, including Bhatt, by Amrutlal Vaishnani, the brother of the deceased, following which the investigation was transferred to the state Criminal Investigation Department (CID) branch in Gandhinagar.

In 1995, the CID investigating officer requested sanction from the government to prosecute Bhatt as is required for the prosecution of a government officer when on duty. However, the government did not grant the sanction. After that, CID filed a summary report, which is a closure report, in the court. However, the court rejected this report in December 1995 and instead took cognisance of offences alleged against Bhatt and six others.

An A-summary report was filed in this case in 1995 after the Gujarat Government refused to grant sanction for prosecuting Bhatt. However, after Bhatt’s deposition in relation to the 2002 communal riots before the Nanavati and the Mehta commissions between May and July 2011, the state government withdrew protection granted to him, and the Jamnagar court began framing charges soon after.

A Jamnagar sessions court sentenced Bhatt to life imprisonment in June 2019. This was subsequently upheld by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court.