IPL 2025’s wild comeback: Final shifted, matches moved, players missing – full revised schedule here

Bengaluru: The shooting incident involving CJ Roy, founder of the Confident Group, has once again put the spotlight on a businessman whose life has swung between flamboyant global success and persistent controversy at home.

Though Roy’s business interests extended across continents, his roots lay firmly in Karnataka. An alumnus of Christ School in Bengaluru, he later moved to Tumakuru to pursue an engineering degree. Those familiar with his early years describe him as intensely ambitious, beginning his career as a salesman at a small electronics firm dealing in computers.

Roy’s entry into large-scale real estate came through the Crystal Group, where he worked closely with Latha Namboothiri and rose from manager to director. However, the launch of the Confident Group in 2005 was clouded by industry speculation. Insiders speak of a fallout involving alleged “benami” properties and claims of deception that ultimately led to his independent venture—an episode Roy spent years trying to distance himself from, according to associates.

A tale of two cities

Roy’s professional trajectory diverged sharply across geographies.

In Dubai, he built a reputation as a bold and efficient developer, completing massive luxury residential projects in record time—some reportedly within 11 months. His rapid project delivery and lavish lifestyle in the Emirates earned him admiration and visibility in the real estate sector.

In Bengaluru, however, his image remained far more fractured. Sources say Roy stayed away from the city for several years amid disputes over unpaid dues to vendors and suppliers. Several projects were allegedly stalled, with accusations of unfulfilled commitments to cement and steel suppliers continuing to follow him.

Roy’s return to Bengaluru’s business and social circles began around 2018, marked by a conscious attempt at rebranding. His appointment as Honorary Consul of the Slovak Republic added diplomatic legitimacy, which he complemented with visible CSR initiatives, including ambulance donations and high-profile charity events.

Heavy police presence in Langford Town

Following the incident, police personnel from the Central division were deployed outside the Confident Group building in Langford Town, which also houses the Slovak Honorary Consulate in Bengaluru.

The otherwise busy premises near Hosur Road wore a deserted look on Friday, reflecting the shock and uncertainty that followed the tragedy.

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash an investigation against a WhatsApp group administrator accused of allowing the circulation of obscene and offensive images depicting Hindutva politicians and idols in 2021.

Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that, prima facie, the ingredients of the offence under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code were made out. “The offence under Section 295A of the IPC is met to every word of its ingredient, albeit prima facie,” the judge said.

The petitioner, Sirajuddin, a resident of Belthangady taluk in Dakshina Kannada district, had challenged the FIR registered against him at the CEN (Cyber, Economics and Narcotics) police station, Mangaluru, for offences under Section 295A of the IPC and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. Section 295A relates to punishment for deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class of citizens.

According to the complaint filed by K Jayaraj Salian, also a resident of Belthangady taluk, he received a WhatsApp group link from an unknown source and was added to the group after accessing it. The group reportedly had six administrators and around 250 participants, where obscene and offensive images depicting Hindu deities and certain political figures were allegedly circulated repeatedly.

Sirajuddin was arrested in connection with the case and later released on bail on February 16, 2021. He argued before the court that he was being selectively targeted, while other administrators—including the creator of the group—were neither arrested nor investigated. He also contended that the Magistrate could not have taken cognisance of the offence under Section 295A without prior sanction under Section 196(1) of the CrPC.

Rejecting the argument, Justice Nagaprasanna held that prior sanction is required only at the stage of taking cognisance, and not at the stage of registration of the crime or during investigation.

The judge noted that the State had produced the entire investigation material before the court. “A perusal of the material reveals depictions of Hindu deities in an extraordinarily obscene, demeaning and profane manner. The content is such that its reproduction in a judicial order would itself be inappropriate,” the court said, adding that the material, on its face, had the tendency to outrage religious feelings and disturb communal harmony.

Observing that the case was still at the investigation stage, the court said it could not interdict the probe at this juncture. However, it expressed concern that the investigating officer appeared to have not proceeded uniformly against all administrators. The court clarified that if the investigation revealed the active involvement of any member in permitting the circulation of such content, they must also be proceeded against.

“At this investigative stage, any further observation by this Court would be unnecessary,” the order concluded.