‘He promised to marry me, got me pregnant’: Pak captain Babar Azam’s ‘school friend’ unleashes anger

Comedian Shyam Rangeela on Tuesday that he was barred from filing his nomination papers for the 2024 Lok Sabha Elections. He intended to challenge Prime Minister Narendra Modi from the Varanasi seat by contesting as an Independent candidate.

Despite attempts to file his papers since May 10, Rangeela alleged he was denied entry to the district magistrate's office on the day Prime Minister Modi filed his nomination. He also said that he is not taking any team from Sriganganagar to contest the Lok Sabha elections in Varanasi. 

Shyam Rangeela further claimed that he has received several phone calls from Varanasi and people are willing to join him. "Winning or losing is a different matter, but I will contest the elections against the Prime Minister at any cost. I am not contesting elections to become famous, I am already very famous among the public."

The Congress party also waded into the controversy. Congress leader Surendra Rajput told news agency PTI that everyone is free to file a nomination including Prime Minister Modi. Rajput claimed that Rangeela was not getting nomination papers from the administration. 

"Everyone is free to file a nomination including PM Modi. However, other people are not allowed to file their nominations from the constituency. A YouTuber named (Shyam) Rangeela, who wished to file a nomination from Varanasi, isn’t getting nomination papers from the administration. Why PM Modi is afraid of people? Let them contest against you," he said. 

PM Modi, contesting for a third term, previously won the Varanasi seat by 4.8 lakh votes in 2019 and by 3.72 lakh votes in 2014. So far, 14 individuals, including mainstream political party candidates and independents, have filed their nominations for the Varanasi constituency.

Congress candidate Ajai Rai and Bahujan Samajwadi Party's Athar Ali Lari are among them. Rangeela, a YouTuber and mimic from Rajasthan’s Hanumangarh, rose to fame in 2017 with his act impersonating PM Modi. He has been critical of the Prime Minister and his policies, as evident in his videos.
 

Bengaluru: In a fresh development in the alleged Hassan sex abuse case, JD(S) MLA H D Revanna, who was accused of sexually harassing his house help, has been booked for kidnapping a victim allegedly sexually assaulted by his son, Hassan MP Prajwal Revanna. The case was filed late Thursday evening at the KR Nagar police station in Mysuru.

The 20-year-old complainant from KR Nagara accused one Sathish Babanna of taking his mother away forcibly and keeping her in an unknown location at the behest of Revanna.

As per the FIR, Revanna has been named as accused 1 while Babanna was accused 2. The duo were booked under IPC Sections 364A (kidnapping for ransom), 365 (kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine a person) and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention).

The complainant claimed that his mother, whose name and age were not revealed, had worked as a help in Revanna’s house and farm in Holenarasipura for six years, quit the job three years ago and returned to KR Nagara. She then worked for daily wages.

“Nearly three to four days before the Lok Sabha election, Sathish Babanna, who is known to us and hailed from our native place, took my mother to Holenarasipura after saying that Bhavani Revanna, the wife of MLA Revanna, had asked for her,” the complainant alleged, adding that Babanna dropped her back on the day of the polls.

Babanna allegedly told the victim’s mother and father to remain silent and evade the police if they came looking for them and to inform him of the developments.

On April 29, at around 9 pm, when the complainant was home, the suspect Babanna arrived, told the complainant’s mother that Revanna had asked for her and took her away on his motorcycle. The complainant claimed that he wasn’t aware of where Babanna took his mother and he had told him that if the police found her, a case would be registered and they would all go to jail.

On May 1, two of the complainant’s relatives called him on the phone and told him that there was a video of his mother being sexually assaulted by Prajwal and that it was a huge case, the FIR noted. He was also informed by his two friends of his "mother's videos being circulated".

When he asked Babanna later that night, he was allegedly told that there was a photo of his mother standing with a stick when Prajwal had quarrelled with someone earlier and an FIR had been registered. Babanna told the complainant that his mother would have to be released on bail, the FIR noted.

“Babanna told me not to speak on the matter on my phone and asked me to talk from a different phone,” he said, seeking action from the police.

The case has been transferred to the Special Investigation Team (SIT) set up to probe the Hassan sex scandal as per the government order.

The Supreme Court Friday granted interim bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal till June 1 in the excise policy case.

The top court, however, stated that it will be passing a detailed order over the matter soon.

On Thursday, the Enforcement Directorate had opposed the move to grant interim bail to Kejriwal saying that “any special concession” to him will “amount to anathema to the rule of law and equality… thereby creating two separate classes in the country viz. ordinary people, who are bound by the rule of law as well as the laws of the country, and politicians who can seek exemption from the laws”.

The ED had arrested Kejriwal on March 21 in the excise policy case.

“The right to campaign for an election is neither a fundamental right nor a constitutional right and not even a legal right,” the ED said, maintaining that to its knowledge, “no political leader has been granted interim bail for campaigning even though he is not the contesting candidate”.

After the ED filed its affidavit, the AAP, in a press release, said, “The legal team of Delhi Chief Minister and AAP National Convenor, Shri Arvind Kejriwal, has raised strong objection to the affidavit filed by the Enforcement Directorate opposing interim bail in the Supreme Court.”