Bengaluru Stampede FIR: Karnataka High Court Reserves Orders On Interim Plea Against Arrest Of RCB Marketing Head, Others

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (June 11) reserved its verdict on the interim relief plea moved by RCB's marketing head Nikhil Sosale who was arrested on June 6 in connection with the Bengaluru Stampede near Chinnaswamy stadium ahead of the team's 2025 IPL victory celebration.

The Court also reserved orders on interim pleas of Sunil Mathew, Kiran Kumar S and Shamant N P Mavinakere of the event organising company M/s DNA Entertainement Networks Private.

After hearing the parties for around 4 hours, Justice SR Krishna Kumar reserved its verdict on interim pleas and said,

"Tomorrow at 2.30 pm for pronouncement of order on interim relief". 

During the hearing senior advocate Sandesh Chouta appearing for Sosale argued that when entities are shown in FIR, the Police cannot go behind the employees. There can be no vicarious liability, Chouta added. 

Meanwhile Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty appearing for the State on the other hand submitted that the Team obtained no permission for holding the victory parade and the announcement was made on social media merely one hour before  RCB won.

RCB invited the whole world without permission: State

Arguing that no permission was sought by RCB the Advocate General said, "...they only gave us an intimation letter about the event they had planned on RCB winning. It is against the rules. Intimation was made by KSCA (Karnataka State Cricket Association) on June 3, at 6.30 pm. Announcement made by RCB at 11.30 pm on June 3 after victory". 

He thereafter said that on June 4 at 7.01 am, RCB's social media handle posted about victory parade from Vidhan Soudha ending at Chinnaswamy Stadium. He argued:

"They have over 28 lakh followers' milords. They have invited the whole world but no permission is given. At 8am again another tweet was made by RCB calling supporters to cheer. No information regarding tickets was given. Another tweet was posted at 8.55 am, a video. Even this does not provide information about who could participate in the stadium. These facts are suppressed before lordships in the petitions. They have come to court with unclean hands, showing as if programme is done by State govt. It was RCB's function"

The AG further referred to another tweet at 3.15 pm on June 4 which he said mentions about victory parade details, celebration at Chinnaswamy Stadium and about passes.

He thereafter emphasized, "By then thousands of people had gathered at the stadium. RCB/DNA is responsible for gate management and tickets issuing, including providing private security". 

No permission sought by RCB, entire event was illegal: State

He pointed to a tripartite agreement between between RCB, BCCI and KSCA and submitted that the "responsibility is completely on RCB". To the court's query whether to conduct an event they needed to obtain permission, the Advocate general responded in the affirmative.

The court then asked the AG to point to the legal consequences if the entire event becomes illegal without permission to which AG said that there are two types of license for process and assembly in stadium, so "two permissions were required".

He further said that as event was illegal it was punishable under Section 188 of IPC (now Section 223 BNS) and also Karnataka Police Act. 

Sosale was 'fleeing away': State

On Sosale he further said, "At 10.56 pm the air tickets was purchased by (Nikhil Sosale) and the flight was in the morning. The fact that he was fleeing away is undisputed milord. It is not that we have arrested him while eating dinner or sleeping. Now they are finding fault with investigation". 

The AG said that Sosale was arrested at 4:30am on June 6 and grounds of arrest and other documents were given to him. So far as other three accused also same procedure was followed.

"Atleast when they make submission it ought to have been mentioned that documents were given but...They say it was not given at all. To declare that arrest is illegal they should have made out a case of illegality by saying documents were not given. That is not their case," the AG said. 

Chouta at this stage said that grounds of arrest were given at 2.20 pm. He argued that the arrest intimation mentions no time of arrest, neither did the Inspection memo. He further said that there is a ten hour delay to give documents which State should have given at the time of arrest. He further said that mandatory documents if not given at the time of arrest, makes the arrest bad in law.

However the advocate general countered by saying that all documents required are given and the question was only on timing. "The fact that he was caught at the Airport substantiates the ground of arrest milords. So far as investigation would reveal, two accused A-2, A-3 were driving in the car and they were nabbed near Hoskote," the AG said.

Court asks about ground of arrest

Questioning about providing of grounds of arrest, the court orally asked, "Suppose if you arrest someone at 1.10 pm today do you have time till tomorrow 1 pm to give grounds of arrest?". 

At this stage the Additional State Public Prosecutor (ASPP) B N Jagadeesha said that Supreme Court judgements says "as soon as may be given". 

The advocate general meanwhile said that this was not the challenge in the present case. He said that co-accused Sunil Mathew was arrested at 4.50 am and given grounds of arrest at 2.45 pm. He added, "Validity of grounds of arrest cannot be gone into at this stage on the statement made by the accused". 

The AG thereafter referred to another document indicating the CID appointing its officer for investigation. 

CM's statement has nothing to do with Sosale's arrest: State

The Petitioners had argued that their arrest was not based on investigation but because the Chief Minister had in a press conference said that accused will be arrested.

The AG however assured the Court that "Statement made by CM has nothing to do with the arrest" adding that Sosale was fleeing away.

"Organisers were responsible. Even assuming arrest is illegal, only a Writ of Habeas Corpus is maintainable and not a petition under Section 482. Grounds of arrest are to be given at the earliest and in the instant case they have been supplied milord. Guidelines laid down in SC judgement in DK Basu case have been followed," he added. 

As the AG submitted that as per news reports the company is 2 billion dollar company, the court said that for considering bail only employees are there and how big and rich the company is irrelevant.

AG said that the petitioners are big people, to which high court said that when it comes to personal liberty it does not matter.

Meanwhile Chouta in his rejoinder submissions submitted that the State failed to address Court's query on whether order was passed by CM to arrest the accused.

"...This has not been argued in the course of arguments. We have pleaded this in our petition. All they said it is irrelevant. Arrest takes places only because of the (CM's) order," Chouta said.

Accused to be looked as individuals, separate from the company: Court

During the hearing, the AG said that petitioners were supposed to take license to hold the event on behalf of the company. The court however said that the accused must be looked at as "individuals" and it will not identify the company with the individual.

"Entitles are the accused and before us are individuals. So let us not enlarge this into a company vs state. After investigation you will come to know who was responsible. Today how do you know who is responsible," the court said.

AG emphasized that the State had "identified the correct person". Chouta meanwhile argued, "According to them (State) person who invited for celebration you have arrested. You have suspended police officials. But even Deputy CM has invited". AG countered this by saying that the invite was only made by RCB. 

The high court meanwhile said that the point on permission for invite cannot be relevant for consideration of interim relief.