Darshan arrest case: No soft corner for anyone, says Karnataka Home Minister
Bengaluru (PTI): Karnataka Home Minister G Parameshwara on Monday asserted that there was no question of showing soft corner for anyone with regard to investigation into the Renukaswamy murder case in which Kannada actor Darshan and his actress friend Pavithra Gowda have been arrested.
He said the police will initiate action without any consideration.
"There is no question of protecting or showing soft corner for anyone. We will not succumb to any such things," Parameshwara told reporters.
Declining to disclose sensitive information openly in public, the home minister said the investigation report will be out after the probe.
When asked about when the investigation will be completed, Parameshwara said it is left to the team probing it.
"Whatever action has to be taken as per law will be initiated. I and Chief Minister Siddaramaiah have said time and again that we will take action without any consideration," he added.
Regarding the re-induction of inspector Girish Naik in the investigation team, the home minister said such changes are subject to administrative requirements and it is left to the police department to decide who should be part of the investigation.
Darshan, Gowda and his 17 aides were arrested on charges of murdering Renukaswamy from Chitradurga on June 8 for allegedly sending obscene messages to Gowda.
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.
NADA suspends Bajrang Punia for four years for violation of anti-doping code
New Delhi, Nov 26: The National Anti-Doping Agency on Tuesday suspended Bajrang Punia for four years for his refusal to provide his sample for dope test on March 10 during selection trials for the national team.
NADA had first suspended the Tokyo Games bronze medallist wrestler on April 23 for the offence following which, the World Governing body UWW had also suspended him.
Bajrang had appealed against the provisional suspension and NADA’s Anti-Disciplinary Doping panel (ADDP) had revoked it on May 31 till NADA issues the notice of charge.
NADA, then on June 23 served the notice to the wrestler.
Bajrang, who joined Congress along with fellow wrestler Vinesh Phogat and was given charge of All India Kisan Congress, had challenged the charge on July 11 in a written submission following which hearings were held on September 20 and October 4.
"The Panel holds that the Athlete is liable for sanctions under Article 10.3.1 and liable for ineligibility for a period of 4 years," the ADDP said in its order.
The suspension means that Bajrang will not be able to return to competitive wrestling and apply for a coaching job abroad, if he aspires to.
"In the present case, since the Athlete had been provisionally suspended, the Panel accordingly holds that the Athlete’s period of his ineligibility for the period of 4 years shall commence from the date on which the notification was sent, i.e., 23.04.2024.
"Needless to say that on account of the lifting of the provisional suspension for the period from 31.05.2024 to 21.06.2024 shall not be credited into the total period of ineligibility of four years."
Bajrang has maintained since the beginning that he was given extremely prejudicial and unfair treatment with respect to doping control because of his involvement in the protest against former WFI President Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh.
Bajrang also maintained that he never refused to give sample but only demanded to know NADA’s response to his email where he sought answer why expired kits were sent to take his samples in December 2023.
NADA also explained the reason for its action, saying that the Chaperone/DCO had duly approached him and informed that he was required to provide a urine sample for dope analysis purposes.
Bajrang in his written submission said that the conduct of NADA in two previous instances had created mistrust in the athlete's mind, especially with NADA failing to acknowledge or even respond to their callous approach towards the doping control process in both such instances, the failure to take responsibility for their action pertaining to their dispersal of duties meant that the athlete was morally bound to take a stance in resort as a senior athlete who holds a voice in the sporting community.
Bajrang also said "it was not an outright refusal per se. The athlete was always willing to provide his sample provided that he first received a response from NADA concerning the use of expired kits."
However NADA said, "the outright refusal by the athlete to provide urine sample for the dope test was intentional and deliberate" and that "Athlete has demonstrated utter disregard towards his duties and responsibilities as per Articles 20.1 & 20.2 of the Anti Doping Rules, 2021."
