Hyderabad play goalless draw with Bengaluru in ISL
Margao, Nov 28: Hyderabad FC settled for their second successive draw, a stalemate, in the Indian Super League, splitting points with Bengaluru FC at the Fatorda Stadium, here on Saturday.
Getting four points from two outings is best start in the league for Hyderabad.
However, it was a frustrating evening for Bengaluru FC, who are yet to taste a win this season.
The two sides showed attacking intent from the word go and BFC had their first attempt as early as the fifth minute. Ashique Kuruniyan tried his luck from a distance but his effort took a deflection before being collected by Hyderabad custodian Subrata Paul.
This turned out to be the only attempt at goal in the first session.
Hyderabad's adamant defending frustrated Bengaluru, who struggled to take the ball up to their attacking trio of Sunil Chhetri, Kristian Opseth and Udanta Singh. Trying to find an alternative, Bengaluru engaged in long-range shots, which proved futile.
Going forward, Hyderabad were the better side in the first half. The men in yellow nearly took the lead in the 25th minute from a Lluis Sastre set-piece. Bengaluru keeper Gurpreet Singh Sandhu denied Aridane Santana's header with a full-stretch save to keep the scores level.
Hyderabad pushed Bengaluru deep in their territory with Halicharan Narzary, Joel Chianese and Santana making regular inroads.
However, the visitors suffered a blow before the break as their foreigners Chianese and Sastre limped off the pitch with Yasir and Sharma replacing the duo.
Despite making a half-time change, replacing Kristian Opseth with Dimas Delgado, Bengaluru had nothing different to offer as their opponents continued to dominate the play.
Santana's struggle continued as he missed a great opportunity to put his side ahead in the 55th minute. After dribbling past the Bengaluru defence, the Spaniard's shot was way off target.
Both sides repeatedly tried to find the net from distance with the attempts being either blocked or going way off target.
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.
Court in Bengaluru defers order on ED plea against ‘B Report’ in MUDA land allotment case
Bengaluru (PTI): A special court for people’s representatives here on Tuesday deferred its order on a petition filed by ED against the ‘B Report’ filed by the Karnataka Lokayukta police in the MUDA land allotment case.
The report has cleared Chief Minister Siddaramaiah of wrongdoing. However, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the complainant, activist Snehamaayi Krishna, have filed objections challenging the report and demanded a deeper probe.
During the hearing, the presiding judge Santosh Gajanan Bhat stated that a decision on the B Report would be taken only after the Lokayukta police submits a complete investigation report.
As a result, the court adjourned the proceedings and posted the next hearing for May 7.
The court also granted the Lokayukta police permission to continue its investigation, following a request made by the agency.
Earlier, the Mysuru division of the Lokayukta police had submitted an initial report based on its inquiry into allegations against Siddaramaiah and three others.
However, the court observed that the investigation should not be limited to just four individuals and directed the police to probe all those involved and file a comprehensive report.
The case pertains to alleged irregularities in the allotment of sites by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA), in which CM Siddaramaiah has been accused of misusing his position.
The allegations suggest that residential sites were allotted in violation of norms and procedures, potentially benefiting certain individuals, including Siddaramaiah’s family members.
The complaint filed by activist Snehamaayi Krishna prompted the Lokayukta to initiate an investigation.
A ‘B Report’—essentially a closure report indicating no evidence of wrongdoing—was later filed, stating there was no sufficient material to prosecute the accused.
However, this report has now been contested, with both the ED and the complainant arguing that crucial aspects of the case were overlooked or insufficiently examined.
