Kotekar Cooperative Bank robbery case: Plot hatched 6 months ago; 3 visits before the robbery
Mangaluru: Mangaluru police have taken into custody the father of the accused in connection with the robbery at Kotekar Agricultural Cooperative Bank. Police have intensified the investigation after arresting three key suspects along with the stolen gold jewellery. During the investigation, it was revealed that the prime accused, Murugandi Tevar, had planned the robbery nearly six months ago, as informed by Police Commissioner Anupam Agrawal.
The Police Commissioner shared the details in a press conference at his office on Monday. He mentioned that Shashi Thevar, a Mangaluru native residing in Mumbai, had identified Kotekar Bank as suitable for the robbery, citing a lack of security. Accordingly, Murugandi Thevar visited Mangaluru in August, October, and November of 2024 to survey the bank. He chose January 17 as the day for the heist. On the day of the robbery, three accused arrived by car from Mumbai, while two others arrived by train. The accused reached the location at 12:20 PM, waited for a while, and then broke into the bank around 1:10 PM before fleeing, the Commissioner explained.
During the investigation, the accused confessed that Shashi Thevar, a local resident, had assisted them in the robbery. The police are now searching for him and four other suspects, said Commissioner Anupam Agrawal.
Mangaluru Police crack state's biggest robbery case
The robbers stole 18.674 kg of gold and ₹11,67,044 on the day of the heist. Through coordinated operations with Tamil Nadu and Mumbai police, Mangaluru police recovered 18.314 kg of gold, ₹3,80,500 in cash, two pistols, three live bullets, a Fiat car, and a fake number plate. Several teams led by ACPs Dhanya and Manoj worked continuously for four days across Tamil Nadu and Mumbai, traveling over 2700 km, the Police Commissioner stated.
The arrested prime accused MurugaThevar is also linked to other major robbery cases in Mumbai, with cases filed against him in Mulund and two other police stations. Another accused, Joshua Rajendran, has cases in Mumbai and Gujarat.
Kannan Mani has a case registered against him in Mumbai, and Murugandi Thevar's father, Shanmug Sundaram, has been arrested for assisting in hiding the stolen gold in his house, as informed by the Police Commissioner.
In the press conference, DCs Siddharth Goyal, Ravishankar, and ACPs Dhanya Nayak, Manoj were present.
After the robbery, the accused Murugandi Thevar and Joshua Rajendran fled towards Kerala through Talapady Gate in a Fiat car, while the other four suspects left via Mangaluru Railway Station. Three of them traveled by auto, and one by bus. Murugandi and his team, who headed towards Mumbai, had planned to escape to Tamil Nadu from there. The plan was to sell the stolen gold in the black market in Mumbai after dividing it equally.
The police's priority was not only to arrest the suspects but also to recover the gold jewellery belonging to approximately 1600 customers that had been stored at the bank. As a result of the operation carried out by the teams, the jewellery was seized before the accused could sell it, Police Commissioner Anupam Agrawal added.
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.
Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
_vb_22.jpeg)
