Underworld operative Bannaje Raja on parole in Udupi
Underworld operative Bannaje Raja alias Rajendra Shettigar, who is serving life imprisonment in Belagavi Central Prison, came to his native Udupi on Sunday, following grant of emergency parole by the Karnataka High Court.
Raja's father Sundar Shettigar, a retired tahsildar, passed away on April 27. The seventh day last rites rituals was held at Raja's ancestral house in Bapu Tota of Malpe on Sunday. Raja was brought in a heavily guarded police convoy from Belagavi to Malpe on Sunday. Police were in big numbers at Raja's house.
In a video statement, Udupi Superintendent of Police K. Arun said Karnataka High Court granted emergency parole to Raja from May 3 to May 14 to take part in last rite rituals of his father. Among the conditions imposed by the High Court include, direction to Raja to remain confined to the house in Malpe, except for visits outside for rituals. He has also been asked not to take part in any criminal activity. Raja has been barred from using mobile phone or internet. At the end of parole on May 14, Raja will be taken back to Belagavi Prison, Mr. Arun stated.
The Belagavi district Karnataka Control of Organised Crime Act (KCOCA) court, on April 4, 2022, had sentenced Bannanje Raja and seven others to life imprisonment for the murder of R.N. Nayak, a mining industrialist, in Ankola of Uttara Kannada disrict in 2013.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
3 hours ago
- Hans India
Kannada Actress's Family Challenges Prolonged Custody In Karnataka High Court Despite Court-Approved Release
The mother of Kannada film actress Ranya Rao has approached the Karnataka High Court through a habeas corpus petition, questioning the legal basis for her daughter's ongoing imprisonment in a major gold trafficking case. Despite receiving court approval for release, the actress remains behind bars due to overlapping legal proceedings. Rao received authorization for release on May 20 from the Special Court for Economic Offences, but her freedom has been blocked by additional charges filed under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Cofeposa). This separate legal framework allows authorities to maintain custody of individuals suspected of smuggling activities that threaten foreign exchange conservation. The actress was apprehended at Bengaluru airport on March 3 following allegations of attempting to transport 14.8 kilograms of gold from Dubai. According to official reports, a comprehensive physical examination revealed gold bars strategically hidden around her body using medical bandages and tissues, particularly around her waist and leg areas. Investigators also discovered additional gold pieces concealed within her footwear and clothing pockets. The confiscated precious metal, confirmed to be 24-carat quality, carried an estimated value exceeding Rs 12.56 crore. Legal proceedings have been initiated against Rao under both the Customs Act and the Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act. During recent court proceedings, Additional Solicitor General Aravind Kamath informed the court that formal objections had been submitted regarding the case. The court has scheduled the next hearing for June 18. The Special Court for Economic Offences had granted release to both Rao and co-accused Tarun Kondaru Raju last month, requiring each to provide two guarantors and post a Rs 2 lakh security bond. The release conditions included restrictions on international travel and prohibitions against repeating similar offenses. Justice Vishwanath C Gowdar approved the release after the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence failed to file charges within the required timeframe. However, the Cofeposa legislation enables authorities to maintain preventive detention for individuals suspected of engaging in smuggling operations or activities that could harm foreign exchange stability, effectively overriding the earlier bail decision. This legal mechanism has resulted in Rao's continued incarceration despite the court's initial approval for her release.
The Hindu
3 hours ago
- The Hindu
Bar Council of Kerala issues show-cause notice to newly enrolled lawyer
The Bar Council of Kerala (BCK) on Wednesday issued show-cause notice to a young lawyer who was enrolled four days ago, for circulating a short video on social media on his enrolment ceremony which shows an official vehicle of a High Court judge. In the show-cause notice issued to Mohammed Fayiz from Chavakkad, Thrissur, the BCK secretary said that the video amounted to advertising and soliciting, and demeaning the dignity of the judiciary. The use of the video of the judge's vehicle is ill-motivated and malicious. The BCK is prima facie of the view that the act amounts to misconduct, and that he is liable to be proceeded against under Section 35 of the Advocates Act.
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
Freedom of speech does not include freedom to make defamatory statements against Army: HC to Rahul Gandhi
Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel Freedom of speech is subject to reasonable restrictions and it does not include the freedom to make defamatory statements against any person or the Indian Army, the Allahabad High Court has said, rejecting Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's plea to quash summons against him for alleged derogatory remarks during his Bharat Jodo Yatra in Subhash Vidyathi of the Lucknow bench, in his May 29 verdict, observed that there was a prima facie case against Gandhi for making defamatory statements against the Indian Army and upheld the lower court order issued in February summoning the Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha to face trial."No doubt, Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech and expression, this freedom is subject to reasonable restrictions and it does not include the freedom to make statements which are defamatory to any person or defamatory to the Indian Army," the judge said in the detailed order released case stems from a complaint filed by Udai Shanker Srivastava, a retired Director from the Border Roads Organisation (a position equivalent to a Colonel in the Indian Army).Srivastava alleged that on December 16, 2022, during his 'Bharat Jodo Yatra' in Lucknow, Gandhi made disparaging comments about a face-off between the Indian and Chinese armies in Arunachal Pradesh on December 9, contended that Gandhi's statement was "false and baseless" and made with "evil intention of demoralising the Indian Army and to damage the faith of the Indian population in the Indian Army."He highlighted that the official statement from the Indian Army on December 12, 2022, confirmed that "PLA troops contacted the LAC in Tawang Sector which was contested by our troops in a firm and resolute manner. This faceoff led to minor injuries to a few personnel from both sides."The complainant said that Gandhi's "baseless and derogatory statement" deeply hurt him and other Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 27, Lucknow, had on February 11, 2025, summoned Gandhi to face trial for the offence under Section 500 of the Penal Code (defamation).The lower court observed that prima facie, Gandhi's statement appeared to demoralise the Indian Army and its personnel, and was not made in the performance of his official the High Court, Gandhi's counsel Pranshu Agarwal argued that the complaint was politically motivated and lacked contended that the complainant was not an "aggrieved person" under Section 199 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as the alleged defamation was against the Indian Army as an institution, not Srivastava High Court, however, clarified that the complainant as an "aggrieved person" is capable of filing the complaint under Section 199 Vidyarthi also noted that the trial court's decision to summon Gandhi was based on a "judicious application of mind" after considering the complaint and witness statements, and was not mechanical, while dismissing Gandhi's plea challenging the summons. PTI
