Mangaluru: Burglary at house of Bajpe family living in Muscat; thieves steal jewelry worth Rs 80 lak
Bajpe: A case of burglary was reported from Permude situated under the jurisdiction limits of Bajpe Police Station, with the thieves breaking into a house of a family currently residing in Muscat.
The burglars, who broke into the house on Monday night, have reportedly stolen about 1.1 kg gold jewelry worth approximately Rs 80 lakh. They are learned to have gained entry by sawing the iron bars that had been installed at the windows of one of the rooms. The thieves broke open a cupboard in the room and stole the jewelry kept inside.
The owner of the house, Praveen Pinto, a native of Permude, is learned to be living with his family in Muscat. On Wednesday morning, Pinto’s mother, who is also in Muscat, checked the footage of the CCTV camera installed outside the house. As she turned suspicious after watching the recordings, the family called Abdul Basheer, a taxi driver they knew, and asked him to check the situation near their house. The theft came to light when Basheer inspected the house.
Mangaluru City Police Commissioner Anupam Agrawal, ACP Shrikanth of Panambur Sub-division and Bajpe Police Inspector Sandeep visited the spot. The dog squad and the team from Forensic Sciences Laboratory were called to conduct an inspection.
Bajpe Police have registered a case based on Basheer’s complaint and further investigation is underway.
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.
Opposition plans to move fresh notice seeking removal of CEC Gyanesh Kumar
New Delhi (PTI): Undeterred by the rejection of their earlier notices, opposition parties are planning a fresh move to seek the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, sources said on Saturday.
According to highly placed sources, leaders from several opposition parties are in talks, and at least five senior MPs from different parties -- including the Congress, the Trinamool Congress, the Samajwadi Party and the DMK -- are working on drafting a new notice to initiate removal proceedings.
It has, however, not yet been decided which House the notice would be moved in, or whether it would be introduced in both Houses as was done last time, the source added.
Buoyed by the defeat of The Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026 in Lok Sabha on Friday, opposition leaders are aiming to secure more MPs' signatures on the notice and are looking at garnering at least 200, the source said.
"We want to make a statement. We first need to prove that the number last time was underestimated," the source added.
In its earlier notices, the opposition had accused CEC Kumar of a "failure to maintain independence and constitutional fidelity" and of acting under the "thumb of the executive".
The notices levelled sweeping charges against the CEC, alleging “proved misbehaviour” on grounds including a compromised and executive-influenced appointment, partisan functioning -- such as the alleged “graded response” doctrine targeting opposition leaders -- obstruction of electoral fraud investigations, and erosion of transparency through refusal to share data and materials.
They further accused him of enabling large-scale disenfranchisement via Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercises in Bihar and elsewhere, defying or delaying compliance with Supreme Court directions, and acting in alignment with the political executive, thereby undermining the independence of the Election Commission.
However, in almost similar responses, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla and Rajya Sabha Chairman C P Radhakrishnan rejected the notices, holding that even if the allegations were assumed to be true, they did not meet the high constitutional threshold of “misbehaviour” required for removal.
They reasoned that appointment-related issues or prior government service do not constitute misconduct; differences in public statements or administrative decisions lack evidence of wilful abuse of authority; and actions like data-sharing or electoral roll revisions fall within the commission’s constitutional mandate and are subject to judicial review.
The responses also stressed that many issues cited were either speculative, politically interpretative, or sub judice, and that removal proceedings cannot be based on disagreement or perceived political consequences but require clear, specific, and provable misconduct, which, they concluded, was absent in this case.
