Andhra Pradesh Minister Anitha emphasises curbing crimes via invisible policing
VIJAYAWADA: Home Minister Vangalapudi Anitha said that policing in the state is moving forward effectively by adopting technology, adding that the ASTraM App, Shakti App, and widespread installation of CCTV cameras are helping to crack down on crimes and regulate traffic problems across the State.
The home minister asserted that they were controlling crimes through invisible policing.
On Saturday, the home minister inaugurated 'Suraksha 360' - a 100% CCTV surveillance covering the entire NTR district. The project aims to bring every town, village, ward, and hamlet under surveillance for public safety.
The NTR District Commissionerate, under the leadership of Commissioner of Police (CP) SV Rajasekhara Babu, set up CCTV cameras across the district, covering 321 villages, 20 mandals, 4 municipalities, and 64 divisions of VMC.
Addressing the occasion, Anitha highlighted the role of CCTV cameras in controlling and chasing down crimes, pointing to a reduced crime rate after their installation.
During the event, Anitha asked the public to stay away from and be aware of online fraud. CP Rajasekhara Babu said that steps have been taken to install at least four CCTV cameras in every village of the district. He appreciated the donation of Rs 30 lakhs by Vijayawada West MLA Sujana Chowdary for the same.
Vijayawada MP Kesineni Sivanath (Chinni) requested the NTR CP to arrange CCTV cameras at schools, colleges, and markets. The Suraksha devices will help keep safe and protect all religious places.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
34 minutes ago
- News18
CBI Files Closure Report In Najeeb Ahmed Case: 10 Years On, JNU Student's Disappearance Still A MysteryFive hundred police personnel, sniffer dogs, mounted police, photographers and videographers, 560 witness examinations, analysis of more than 200 documents, testimonies from 116 auto-rickshaw drivers and a cash reward of Rs 10 lakh – despite all of this, the disappearance of JNU student Najeeb Ahmed in October 2016 remains a mystery. A city court on Monday accepted the CBI's closure report filed in the case of Najeeb Ahmed's disappearance. While accepting the report, the court said it is of the opinion that the premier central agency investigated all plausible avenues available and the present closure report stands accepted. "The court also earnestly hopes that Najeeb Ahmed shall be traced soon. This court expresses its regret that while the proceedings in the present case end with this closure report, a closure for Najeeb's mother and other loved ones still eludes us. The CBI is at liberty to reopen the investigation on receipt of any credible information… and shall intimate the court," the court observed. Delhi Police initially handled the investigation, but it was later transferred to the CBI after Najeeb's mother filed a habeas corpus petition in the Delhi High Court expressing dissatisfaction with the probe. In October 2018, the CBI closed its investigation into the case. During the investigation it had also appeared that Najeeb had an altercation with some of his hostel mates on the intervening night of October 14 and 15, 2016. Noting that the court, while accepting the closure report, said while the allegations regarding physical assault and verbal threats against Najeeb on the night of October 14, 2016, are supported by witness testimonies, those events cannot be linked to his subsequent disappearance. 'The CBI has, through the evidence collected (the genuineness of which has not been disputed), satisfactorily explained the whereabouts of the suspects and ruled out their involvement. The mere existence of a motive or hostility, sans any corroborative material, cannot be a substitute for proof,' the court said. Najeeb was an MSc Biotechnology student at JNU and was allotted room number 106 in Mahi-Mandvi hostel of the university. Police found during its investigation that elections of the Mahi-Mandvi hostel were scheduled to take place on October 17, two days before which Najeeb went missing. WHAT HAPPENED? It surfaced that students, namely, Vikrant Kumar, Sunil Pratap Singh and Ankit Kumar Roy, contesting for the post of mess secretary and hostel committee member, were campaigning for the same, on the night of October 14, 2016. They went to visit room number 106 of the hostel, which was opened by Najeeb, and they requested him to cast his vote in their favour. As per the investigation, Najeeb got angry about this, abused, and slapped Vikrant Kumar (one of the campaigning students) twice and questioned him about the red thread (kalava) on his hand. Najeeb also pushed Sunil Pratap Singh, as he tried to intervene. At this point, Ankit Roy went to call the security guard from the ground floor of the hostel. As the situation intensified, the hostel security guard, Rajesh Kumar Jat called and requested the supervisor and hostel wardens. An emergency meeting was called in the warden's office on the same night and, as per the statements of witnesses, Najeeb orally admitted that he had slapped Vikrant without any provocation and also pleaded 'sorry'. Both Vikrant and Najeeb were asked to submit in writing about the incident and Vikrant gave a complaint, mentioning that Najeeb had slapped him, while Najeeb wrote a one line submission: ‘I don't remember.' After the meeting, Najeeb complained of back pain and was taken to Safdarjung Hospital in the JNU ambulance. Najeeb's mother Fatima Nafees, who had been informed about the incident, started for Delhi from Badaun in Uttar Pradesh around 3.30 am along with her younger son, Mujeeb Ahmed. She last spoke to Najeeb around 11.30 am from Anand Vihar, but when she reached the hostel around 1.00 pm, her son was missing and his mobile phone as well as laptop were in the hostel room. According to the witnesses, Najeeb was last seen boarding an auto-rickshaw and was not carrying any luggage. He was wearing the same clothes as the night before. WHO ARE THE SUSPECTS? In this case, there were nine prime suspects – mostly Najeeb's hostel mates with whom he got into a fight. The court said it has perused the digital foot-printing report of the call records and the Central Forensic Science Laboratory reports. It has been revealed, the main accused remained there, from the morning of October 15, 2016 till lunch when the match got over. It further noted that another one of the suspects, went to the library along with Deepak on October 15 at around 10.30 am. Moreover, another suspect – Ankit Kumar Roy – had gone to attend the School of Language on the morning of Octoner in 15 and returned to the hostel only at 1.30 pm, the court noted. THE INVESTIGATION It was on the night of October 15, 2016 when the Vasant Kunj police station (North) in South Delhi, received Najeeb Ahmed's missing complaint which was converted into FIR the next day. Initially, wireless messages were sent out to all units concerned, police stations, districts, and missing person's details were uploaded on Zonal Integrated Police Net (ZIPNET). As the investigation proceeded, police examined staff, students and classmates of Najeeb. Multiple police teams conducted combing operations on the JNU campus as well as in Sanjay Van, behind JNU, twice, with private security personnel from JNU. At the JNU campus, the lands, buildings, water tanks and forest area were also thoroughly searched on December 19 and 20, 2016, in a massive search operation led by a Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) consisting about 560 police officials, assisted by sniffer dogs, mounted police, photographers and videographers. At least 560 witnesses, including Ahmed's family members, classmates, hostel administration among doctors treating Najeeb were examined, security guards and students at JNU, members of the proctorial enquiry committee, and the officials of Delhi Police involved in search of the JNU premises and other neighbouring areas. The probe agency also recorded testimonies of 116 auto-rickshaw drivers plying in and around JNU campus and 61 of them operating around Jamia Millia University. Indian Railways said information was sought from taxi operators, cab service providers, Indian Railways, regarding the possibility of any travel, which could have been undertaken by Najeeb. It was also checked if he had left the city by air. Scrutiny of his bank accounts and information sought from the branches of the banks to identify whether any transaction had taken place in his bank account, ever since his disappearance, were also undertaken. In fact, a Yellow Notice was also issued through Interpol, in order to trace Najeeb and the same was published in all the member-countries of Interpol. Moreover, a reward of Rs 10,00,000 was also announced for the public.
CBI Files Closure Report In Najeeb Ahmed Case: 10 Years On, JNU Student's Disappearance Still A MysteryFive hundred police personnel, sniffer dogs, mounted police, photographers and videographers, 560 witness examinations, analysis of more than 200 documents, testimonies from 116 auto-rickshaw drivers and a cash reward of Rs 10 lakh – despite all of this, the disappearance of JNU student Najeeb Ahmed in October 2016 remains a mystery. A city court on Monday accepted the CBI's closure report filed in the case of Najeeb Ahmed's disappearance. While accepting the report, the court said it is of the opinion that the premier central agency investigated all plausible avenues available and the present closure report stands accepted. "The court also earnestly hopes that Najeeb Ahmed shall be traced soon. This court expresses its regret that while the proceedings in the present case end with this closure report, a closure for Najeeb's mother and other loved ones still eludes us. The CBI is at liberty to reopen the investigation on receipt of any credible information… and shall intimate the court," the court observed. Delhi Police initially handled the investigation, but it was later transferred to the CBI after Najeeb's mother filed a habeas corpus petition in the Delhi High Court expressing dissatisfaction with the probe. In October 2018, the CBI closed its investigation into the case. During the investigation it had also appeared that Najeeb had an altercation with some of his hostel mates on the intervening night of October 14 and 15, 2016. Noting that the court, while accepting the closure report, said while the allegations regarding physical assault and verbal threats against Najeeb on the night of October 14, 2016, are supported by witness testimonies, those events cannot be linked to his subsequent disappearance. 'The CBI has, through the evidence collected (the genuineness of which has not been disputed), satisfactorily explained the whereabouts of the suspects and ruled out their involvement. The mere existence of a motive or hostility, sans any corroborative material, cannot be a substitute for proof,' the court said. Najeeb was an MSc Biotechnology student at JNU and was allotted room number 106 in Mahi-Mandvi hostel of the university. Police found during its investigation that elections of the Mahi-Mandvi hostel were scheduled to take place on October 17, two days before which Najeeb went missing. WHAT HAPPENED? It surfaced that students, namely, Vikrant Kumar, Sunil Pratap Singh and Ankit Kumar Roy, contesting for the post of mess secretary and hostel committee member, were campaigning for the same, on the night of October 14, 2016. They went to visit room number 106 of the hostel, which was opened by Najeeb, and they requested him to cast his vote in their favour. As per the investigation, Najeeb got angry about this, abused, and slapped Vikrant Kumar (one of the campaigning students) twice and questioned him about the red thread (kalava) on his hand. Najeeb also pushed Sunil Pratap Singh, as he tried to intervene. At this point, Ankit Roy went to call the security guard from the ground floor of the hostel. As the situation intensified, the hostel security guard, Rajesh Kumar Jat called and requested the supervisor and hostel wardens. An emergency meeting was called in the warden's office on the same night and, as per the statements of witnesses, Najeeb orally admitted that he had slapped Vikrant without any provocation and also pleaded 'sorry'. Both Vikrant and Najeeb were asked to submit in writing about the incident and Vikrant gave a complaint, mentioning that Najeeb had slapped him, while Najeeb wrote a one line submission: 'I don't remember.' After the meeting, Najeeb complained of back pain and was taken to Safdarjung Hospital in the JNU ambulance. Najeeb's mother Fatima Nafees, who had been informed about the incident, started for Delhi from Badaun in Uttar Pradesh around 3.30 am along with her younger son, Mujeeb Ahmed. She last spoke to Najeeb around 11.30 am from Anand Vihar, but when she reached the hostel around 1.00 pm, her son was missing and his mobile phone as well as laptop were in the hostel room. According to the witnesses, Najeeb was last seen boarding an auto-rickshaw and was not carrying any luggage. He was wearing the same clothes as the night before. WHO ARE THE SUSPECTS? In this case, there were nine prime suspects – mostly Najeeb's hostel mates with whom he got into a fight. The court said it has perused the digital foot-printing report of the call records and the Central Forensic Science Laboratory reports. It has been revealed, the main accused remained there, from the morning of October 15, 2016 till lunch when the match got over. It further noted that another one of the suspects, went to the library along with Deepak on October 15 at around 10.30 am. Moreover, another suspect – Ankit Kumar Roy – had gone to attend the School of Language on the morning of Octoner in 15 and returned to the hostel only at 1.30 pm, the court noted. THE INVESTIGATION It was on the night of October 15, 2016 when the Vasant Kunj police station (North) in South Delhi, received Najeeb Ahmed's missing complaint which was converted into FIR the next day. Initially, wireless messages were sent out to all units concerned, police stations, districts, and missing person's details were uploaded on Zonal Integrated Police Net (ZIPNET). As the investigation proceeded, police examined staff, students and classmates of Najeeb. Multiple police teams conducted combing operations on the JNU campus as well as in Sanjay Van, behind JNU, twice, with private security personnel from JNU. At the JNU campus, the lands, buildings, water tanks and forest area were also thoroughly searched on December 19 and 20, 2016, in a massive search operation led by a Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) consisting about 560 police officials, assisted by sniffer dogs, mounted police, photographers and videographers. At least 560 witnesses, including Ahmed's family members, classmates, hostel administration among doctors treating Najeeb were examined, security guards and students at JNU, members of the proctorial enquiry committee, and the officials of Delhi Police involved in search of the JNU premises and other neighbouring areas. The probe agency also recorded testimonies of 116 auto-rickshaw drivers plying in and around JNU campus and 61 of them operating around Jamia Millia University. Indian Railways said information was sought from taxi operators, cab service providers, Indian Railways, regarding the possibility of any travel, which could have been undertaken by Najeeb. It was also checked if he had left the city by air. Scrutiny of his bank accounts and information sought from the branches of the banks to identify whether any transaction had taken place in his bank account, ever since his disappearance, were also undertaken. In fact, a Yellow Notice was also issued through Interpol, in order to trace Najeeb and the same was published in all the member-countries of Interpol. Moreover, a reward of Rs 10,00,000 was also announced for the public.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Surprised by TN MLA's clean record, SC grants him bail in kidnap case
NEW DELHI: At a time when criminalisation of politics is on the rise, Supreme Court on Monday expressed surprise when it was told that Tamil Nadu MLA M Jagan Moorthy had no criminal antecedent and that led to the apex court granting him anticipatory bail in a kidnapping case of a boy. "It is a surprise on the positive side," said a bench of Justices Manoj Misra and N Kotiswar Singh when senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for the MLA, said the elected representative had no criminal background. Moorthy is the president of Puratchi Bharatham party, which is an ally of main opposition party AIADMK in Tamil Nadu. "If the petitioner is arrested in connection with FIR registered at Thiruvalangadu police station, he shall be released on a personal bond of Rs 25, 000 subject to the undertaking that he shall cooperate in the investigation and will not threaten the witnesses or tamper the evidence," the bench said in its order. Moorthy approached SC challenging Madras HC's June 27 order dismissing his plea for anticipatory bail. He claimed being framed in the case on the basis of a confession statement of a co-accused, without any direct or corroborative evidence linking him to the alleged offence.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
FIR registered against 2 labour department officials on corruption charges in Gurgaon
Gurgaon: The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) has registered an FIR against two officials of the labour department in the city under the Prevention of Corruption Act after being accused of demanding a bribe of Rs 5,000 and accepting Rs 3,500 in cash for approving a business registration application. According to ACB, A Quarian Education Abroad — a private company — applied five times through the official labour department portal for registration of a commercial establishment. Each application was allegedly rejected by labour inspector Manoj Kumar without valid justification. "Despite submitting all required documents and paying the full govt fee, the application was repeatedly turned down, with arbitrary objections raised and no time provided to address them," said Naveen Kumar, the complainant, in his complaint filed in Dec 2023. You Can Also Check: Gurgaon AQI | Weather in Gurgaon | Bank Holidays in Gurgaon | Public Holidays in Gurgaon The complaint said that on Sep 21, 2023, Naveen visited the Labour Department in Gurgaon to ask why the applications were repeatedly rejected. Manoj Kumar claimed the govt fee might have been underpaid. The complainant countered that the full govt fee was paid, after which Manoj asked him to reapply and visit him. A fresh application was made online on the same day, and for approval, Manoj Kumar and clerk Ankit Kumar demanded a bribe of Rs 5,000 and took Rs 3,500 on Sep 22, 2023. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Free P2,000 GCash eGift UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo Naveen recorded this conversation on his phone and submitted it to the officials. The recordings, translated and transcribed over three pages, confirmed the bribe amount and details of the transaction. During the investigation, a voice sample was obtained and sent to the forensic lab in Madhuban, and it matched the sample of the accused. A report was sent to ADG ACB in April 2025 recommending the registration of an FIR against the accused. Last week, an FIR was registered against the labour inspector and the clerk, posted in the office of assistant labour commissioner, circle-16, Gurgaon, under sections 7, 7(A), and 13(1)(b) of the PC Act.
