'Not Named In FIR, No Material For Arrest': RCB Marketing Head Tells High Court In Plea Challenging Arrest In Bengaluru Stampede Case

RCB's marketing head Nikhil Sosale, arrested in connection with the Bengaluru Stampede near Chinnaswamy stadium ahead of the team's 2025 victory celebration, told the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (June 10) that there was no material against him to arrest him, nor was his role mentioned and even the FIR on the incident did not name him. 

The court was hearing Sosale's plea challenging his arrest by the Central Crime Branch in the early hours of June 6. The stampede incident took place on June 4. 

After hearing the parties for some time, Justice SR Krishna Kumar said, "Heard petitioners and to hear the Advocate General, hearing tomorrow morning". 

During the hearing Senior advocate Sandesh Chouta appearing for the petitioner said that Supreme Court in the case of Vihan Kumar had said that if arrest is illegal the person cannot be kept in custody for even one minute. 

Referring to Section 55 CrPC he said, "Even if you are giving the power to anyone it has to be done in writing milord. Nothing is done in this case". Section 55 CrPC states the procedure when police officer deputes subordinate to arrest without warrant. 

Central Crime Branch did not have power to arrest Sosale

The court at this stage orally said, "CCB notwithstanding being superior to this officer of Cubbon park did not have power to arrest in view of Sec 55", to which Chouta responded in the affirmative. Notably Sosale was arrested by the CCB-Central Crime Branch. 

At this stage, the counsel appearing for the Prosecution sought that the matter be kept at 2:30pm, however, the court said that the petitioner can finish his arguments. 

Additional State Public Prosecutor (ASPP) B N Jagadeesha said that the advocate general also wants to hear the arguments and so the matter be posted for hearing at 2.30 pm.

The court however, said that arguments were taking place "only on the organisation structure of the CCB".

Notably when the matter was taken up in the morning, the counsel appearing for the State had submitted that Central Crime Branch (CCB) police by notification has been declared to be officer superior in rank to officer incharge all police stations in Bengaluru, after which the court had kept the matter at 12:00 noon and had asked the State to bring this notification to court.

CCB formed to probe serious offences, how was Sosale roped in?

Chouta meanwhile said, "CID is completely independent and headed by DGP. In this case in remand they do not say how CCB was roped in. Assuming that in local police structure they have been given they cannot do it. CCB (Central Crime Branch) was constituted to probe serious offences in Bengaluru. CCB is not a police station but said to be as superior officer in rank as per a notification. Their argument is that thus CCB can conduct investigation". 

Chouta said that then if the CID is appointed then how can CCB make arrest. Meanwhile Jagadeesha countered, "How can my learned senior say all this unless we explain it. We will produce all the documents to show how CCB came into as issued by senior officers". 

Jagadeesha further said, "We are transpiring everything that happened between June 5 and June 6 morning. We are compiling everything milords". 

No documents given at time of arrest

At this stage the court asked Chouta asked about other arguments made by the petitioner. To this Chouta said, "Grounds of arrest, no documents are given to us at the time of arrest".

Chouta further said, "First arrest took place at 3 am, gives details of arrest made and details of officers who arrested and place. A-4 was arrested from his house in RT Nagar. Nikhil is arrested by CCB officer at Airport. If these arrest took place there were suspension of police officer, why no arrest?". 

Chouta further argued that four persons are arrested without ascertaining their roles. 

No material, no role of the accused mentioned

Chouta said, "Even if there is an offence punishable beyond 7 years and you have power of arrest there has to be reasons to arrest. I am a marketing head of RCB what is the reasons for arresting me". 

The court asked if the FIR contains the petitioner's name. To thus Chouta said that the FIR does not have their names it only states the entities.

The court then remarked, "The remand says they are connected with RCB and DNA so arrested?", to this Chouta responded in the affirmative. 

Chouta said that there is no material against them even after the order of the CM came. The high court then asked, "How do they arrest A-4 who is not even an employee of DNA. How do they come to know about all these things?". 

Chouta said that no role of any of the accused had been mentioned. He said, "Political advisor is removed; you do not cause arrest. Police officers are suspended; they are not arrested. Why segregate me? Here ultimately the point arises is of mens rea".

The court at this stage asked if the Suo Motu PIL was listed today. Chouta said, "They (State) have sought adjournment. I am given to understand that a submission is made that we are misusing the statement made before that court. It all transpired in the hearing". 

The court then asked if the tweet was made by Sosale, to which Chouta said that Tweet is by the entity and the same is done by the government, by asking RCB's fans to come for celebrations.

The high court then said, "A letter was circulated that police told government not to hold the event. It was a WhatsApp message". 

The advocate general Shashi Kiran Shetty meanwhile appeared and sought time to make submissions till tomorrow morning. "My office is working till 5 am," he said. He further said that argument for Sosale's release cannot be considered. 

The Advocate General requested for time till tomorrow (Wednesday) morning adding that he wants everything be put in black and white.

The court then asked Chouta to formulate his arguments and give it to the Advocate General as well as submit it to the court. 

The matter is now listed on Wednesday. 

Case title: NIKHIL SOSALE v/s STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP 16371/2025