Man booked for kidnapping engineering student in Udupi
Udupi (Karnataka), Mar 29 (PTI): A case has been registered against a youth in Udupi on charges of "kidnapping" a 20-year-old engineering student, based on a complaint filed by her father, police said on Saturday.
In the complaint lodged on March 20 at the Udupi Town police station, Godwin Devdas (53) stated that his daughter, who studies at an engineering college in Moodbidri, alighted from her college bus at Kukkikatte Junction, Udupi, at around 6 pm, on the same day.
According to the complainant, while she was walking towards her aunt’s house, a person identified as Akram Mohammed allegedly kidnapped her on his motorbike.
A bus driver who witnessed the incident informed Devdas about it.
Devdas mentioned that he had previously lodged a complaint against Mohammed, accusing him of harassing his daughter when she was a minor.
He alleged that the recent incident was an act of revenge. Based on his complaint, the police registered the case under Section 140(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS).
He claimed that Mohammed had been in contact with his daughter for the past five years through Instagram and had allegedly harassed her by threatening to release their intimate photos on social media.
Devdas expressed dissatisfaction with the police, stating that they had not taken any action on his complaint filed a week ago.
According to him, the police informed him that they could not intervene in a case involving consenting adults and even showed him a video of the couple living together voluntarily. “However, I am concerned about my daughter’s safety,” he said.
In response, Devdas has filed a habeas corpus petition before the High Court, seeking directions for the Udupi Town Police to produce his daughter before the court.
The petition was heard by a Division Bench on Friday and was adjourned to April 4.
Meanwhile, Mohammed has submitted an application for the registration of their marriage under the Special Marriage Act. He has also filed an application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), seeking anticipatory bail before the Udupi Principal District and Sessions Court.
According to court officials, the hearing on Mohammed’s petition has been posted for April 2 for objections from the public prosecutor.
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.
Supreme Court seeks Centre’s response on ED’s power to seize property without judicial oversight
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on December 12 sought the Union government’s response to a petition filed by K. C. Veerendra Puppy, a sitting Karnataka MLA, challenging the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) power under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to seize and retain property for up to 180 days without judicial oversight.
Veerendra Puppy is a member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly from the Chitradurga Assembly constituency in Chitradurga district and was elected in the 2023 Karnataka Legislative Assembly elections on an Indian National Congress ticket.
A Bench comprising Justices P. S. Narasimha and A. S. Chandurkar issued notice on the plea and tagged it with other pending petitions questioning the constitutional validity of the PMLA’s adjudication framework.
The petitioner has specifically challenged Sections 20 and 21 of the PMLA, which empower the ED to seize, freeze, and retain property for up to 180 days without furnishing reasons or granting the affected person an opportunity to contest the action during that period. She has also questioned the composition of the PMLA Adjudicating Authority, contending that it lacks members with judicial training.
ALSO READ: 9 die in Sydney shooting; police killed 1 gunman, another arrested
During the hearing, Justice Narasimha flagged a possible infirmity in the law, observing that complex issues relating to property rights and constitutional safeguards are being decided by authorities without a judicial background.
Appearing for the MLA, Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Ranjit Kumar argued that the current statutory framework allows the ED to operate without effective accountability, leading to arbitrary exercise of power. The petitioner claimed that all her assets, including bank accounts, fixed deposits, jewellery, and vehicles, were seized or frozen without justification and without an opportunity to be heard.
Rohatgi submitted that the challenge rests on two principal grounds: first, the ED’s power to retain property and documents for 180 days without disclosing “reasons to believe”; and second, the constitution of the Adjudicating Authority, which currently comprises a single member who is not legally trained.
He further pointed out that, as per data available on the ED’s official website, nearly 99 percent of attachment and retention orders are upheld by the Adjudicating Authority, suggesting that it functions as a mere approving body rather than an independent adjudicatory forum.
The petition argues that these provisions violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, depriving individuals of equality before law and personal liberty. It contends that adjudication occurs only after the expiry of the 180-day period, when the ED seeks confirmation of retention, leaving affected persons without any remedy in the interim.
Describing the situation as a legal “vacuum” that enables arbitrary and excessive seizures, the plea urges the Court to mandate disclosure of reasons and provide for early judicial review. It also seeks directions requiring that every bench of the PMLA Adjudicating Authority include at least one judicial member.
ALSO READ: Fight for Indian democracy: Priyanka Gandhi Vadra tells gathering at mega rally against ‘vote theft’
The MLA has relied on a 2023 Sikkim High Court judgment in Eastern Institute for Integrated Learning in Management University v. Joint Director, Enforcement Directorate, which directed that PMLA benches must include judicial members. That ruling is presently under challenge before the Supreme Court and has been linked with the present case.
The petition also cites the Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling in Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement, which held that when executive action affects personal liberty, the “reasons to believe” must be recorded and communicated to the affected person. The petitioner argues that this safeguard should extend to property seizures, which can severely impact livelihood and reputation.
The matter will now be heard along with other pending challenges to the PMLA, including those questioning the validity of Section 6 of the Act.
