Bengaluru Stampede: Karnataka HC Questions Sealed Cover Status Report, Calls for Transparency
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court declined to grant interim relief on Monday to Nikhil Sosale, the head of marketing for Royal Challengers Bangalore (RCB), who was arrested on June 6 in connection with a tragic stampede that occurred near the M Chinnaswamy Stadium. The court has adjourned the matter for further hearing on Tuesday.
The High Court has prohibited law enforcement from taking any coercive action against officials from RCB and their event partner, DNA Entertainment Pvt Ltd, until June 12, when the case will be revisited.
In his petition, Sosale contended that his arrest was executed under the directives of Chief Minister Siddaramaiah. RCB and DNA Entertainment have filed a legal challenge against the First Information Report (FIR) registered against them following the stampede that took place on June 4 during a celebratory event for RCB’s first Indian Premier League (IPL) victory.
Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar scheduled the next hearing for June 12, emphasizing the importance of restraint. “There is a gentleman’s understanding—do not take any action until we address this matter,” the judge cautioned the state government, warning against unnecessary arrests. The court also noted that Sosale’s case, given his current detention, would be considered separately at 10:30 AM on June 10.
During the proceedings, Sosale’s attorney argued that the Central Crime Branch had arrested the RCB official at Bengaluru Airport while he was en route to Dubai, based on an FIR filed in the aftermath of the stampede. The petition raised concerns regarding the legality of Sosale’s early morning arrest on June 6, alleging that police actions were unduly influenced by political directives.
Justice Krishna Kumar, presiding over the case, concentrated on critical issues surrounding jurisdiction, procedural integrity, and the potential political motivations behind the arrest.
During the proceedings, senior advocate Sandesh Chouta, representing Sosale, argued that the arrest made at 4:30 AM on June 6 lacked any legal foundation.
“The first question we must address is whether the Chief Minister issued a directive for the arrest. The second question is whether the police officers had the authority to apprehend Sosale,” Chouta asserted.
He emphasized that the arrest was executed by the Central Crime Branch (CCB), rather than the police unit responsible for investigating the case. “At the time of an arrest, the individual must be informed of the reasons for their apprehension and the identity of the arresting officer. None of these protocols were followed,” he contended.
“This arrest was not a result of any legitimate investigation; it occurred solely due to directives issued by the Chief Minister,” Chouta alleged, further asserting that there was no criminal intent (mens rea) involved, characterizing the incident as a celebratory event that had gone awry.
Citing the landmark D.K. Basu judgment regarding arrest procedures, Chouta stated, “You cannot simply detain someone without informing them of the grounds for their arrest. My client was with his wife and two-year-old child at the time. His rights under Article 21 were violated,” argued the petitioner’s lawyer.
Chouta also highlighted that by 2:30 PM on June 5, the Karnataka government had informed the court that the investigation had been transferred to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), thereby raising questions about the CCB’s jurisdiction in the matter.
“How did the CCB become involved when the case had already been assigned to the CID? Even the remand application acknowledged that the CID was now handling the investigation,” Chouta pointed out.
In response, Advocate General Shashikiran Shetty, representing the state, objected to the extensive arguments presented, noting that they exceeded the scope of the original petition.
“None of this information is present in Sosale’s pleadings. I need to be formally notified. This 38-page memorandum contains significantly more content than what is included in the petition,” he stated, emphasizing that the state required additional time to formulate a response.
When the judge inquired whether the chief minister had explicitly indicated that arrests would be made, the Attorney General (AG) replied that he would need to verify this and present the original records to the court.
In defense of the timing of the arrest, Shetty remarked, “Officials were merely fulfilling their duties. It’s not as if he was dining at a restaurant; he was en route to the international airport at 5 a.m. What were they supposed to do?” The AG maintained that Sosale’s remand had already occurred, rendering any request for interim relief unnecessary. “An interim order cannot exceed the scope of a final order,” he asserted.
Justice Krishna Kumar also raised the question of whether any prima facie evidence existed at the time of Sosale’s arrest. Citing a Supreme Court ruling in the Arnab Goswami case, the judge noted that interim bail could be granted in the absence of such evidence.
The judge further observed, “Setting aside the CID for a moment, the records indicate that the Cubbon Park Police transferred the case to the Ashok Nagar Police, which subsequently requested the Central Crime Branch (CCB) to execute the arrest. The critical issue is, once the matter was handed over to the CID, did any other agency retain jurisdiction?” Royal Challengers Sports Limited (RCSL), the owner of the Royal Challengers Bangalore (RCB), has asserted that it has been wrongfully implicated in this case.
RCSL asserted that it had effectively communicated via social media that only a limited number of passes were available for the event. Additionally, the organization emphasized that pre-registration was mandatory for entry, even for those seeking free passes.
The company further alleged that the stadium gates, which were scheduled to open at 1:45 PM, did not actually open until 3:00 PM, resulting in a dangerous surge of attendees.
In its petition, DNA contended that the incident was primarily due to inadequate crowd management by law enforcement. The petition also noted that a significant number of police personnel were stationed at Vidhana Soudha, leaving the stadium inadequately staffed in the face of a rapidly growing crowd.
About the Author
