Firing outside Salman Khan's home: Lookout circular issued against Anmol Bishnoi
Mumbai (PTI): A lookout circular (LOC) has been issued against Anmol Bishnoi, the younger brother of jailed gangster Lawrence Bishnoi, in connection with the firing outside actor Salman Khan's house in Mumbai's Bandra earlier this month, a police official has said.
The police are also likely to take custody of Lawrence Bishnoi, who is currently lodged in a jail in Gujarat's Sabarmati, and was also contemplating invoking the stringent Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) in the case, he said.
Anmol Bishnoi had claimed responsibility for the firing and a probe too showed his involvement, following which the LOC was issued on Friday by the Mumbai police, the official added.
"Anmol and Lawrence Bishnoi have been named as wanted accused in the case. Anmol Bishnoi stays in Canada and travels to the USA. However, the IP address of the Facebook post, through which he claimed responsibility of the firing, was traced to Portugal," the official said.
Police had registered the first information report (FIR) under Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections 307 (attempt to murder) after two motorbike-borne men fired at Galaxy Apartment in Bandra, Salman Khan's residence, in the early morning of April 14.
The alleged shooters Vicky Gupta (24) and Sagar Pal (21), both residents of Bihar, have been arrested along with Sonu Kumar Subhash Chander Bishnoi (37) and Anuj Thapan (32), who had provided them two country-made pistols and cartridges on March 15, police have said.
According to police, Sonu Bishnoi and Thapan hail from Fazilka, close to Lawrence Bishnoi's native place in Punjab.
"Both were also accused along with Lawrence and Anmol Bishoi in a firing case registered in Gangapur in Punjab," he said.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
K’taka HC declines stay on menstrual leave order, says issue of public importance
Bengaluru: The State Government has strongly defended its decision to grant one day of paid menstrual leave every month to women employees, telling the Karnataka High Court that the notification was issued in the larger interest of women and is legally sound. The Court, treating the matter as one of significant public importance, refused to stay the implementation of the order and adjourned the hearing to January 20.
The Labour Department’s November 20, 2025 notification was challenged by the Bangalore Hotels Association, Avirat Defence System, Facile Aerospace Technologies Ltd and Samos Technologies Ltd. Justice Jyoti Mulimani heard the petitions on Wednesday.
At the start of the hearing, the bench asked whether the State had filed its objections. Advocate General K. Shashikiran Shetty informed the Court that objections had been submitted and that copies would be provided to the petitioners.
Defending the notification, the Advocate General said the government had introduced a progressive measure aimed at women’s welfare, one that no other state in India had implemented so far. He told the Court that 72 objections were received and considered before finalising the notification. He argued that the government was empowered to frame such policy under Article 42 of the Constitution and noted that the Supreme Court and the Law Commission had earlier made recommendations in this direction.
ALSO READ: MP Brijesh Chowta urges centre to grant point of call status to Mangaluru airport
When the Court asked whether the notification applied to all sectors, the Advocate General replied in the affirmative. The bench observed that the matter required detailed hearing because of its wider public impact and decided to take it up in January. The Court added that petitioners may file their responses to the State’s objections before the next hearing.
Petitioners’ counsel B.K. Prashanth requested that the State be restrained from enforcing the order until the case is decided. The Advocate General responded that the government had already begun implementing the notification across all sectors.
Justice Mulimani noted that nothing would change between now and the next hearing and emphasised that the Court would consider all arguments thoroughly before issuing any direction. The bench then adjourned the matter to January 20 and asked petitioners to file any additional applications with copies to the State’s counsel.
