Karnataka High Court Allows Interim Release Of RCB's Marketing Head Nikhil Sosale, Others In Bengaluru Stampede FIR

The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (June 12) ordered interim release of RCB marketing head Nikhil Sosale in his plea challenging arrest in connection with the Bengaluru stampede near Chinnaswamy stadium which occurred on June 4 ahead of the IPL team's 2025 IPL victory celebration.The court also granted interim relief by ordering interim release of Sunil Mathew, Kiran Kumar S and Shamant N P Mavinakere of the event organising company M/s DNA Entertainment Networks Private Ltd.Justice SR Krishna Kumar who pronounced the verdict directed the release of the petitioners from custody with a condition to surrender their passport. Sosale and other petitioners are presently in judicial custody. The high court had reserved its verdict on interim pleas by which they have sought to be released from custody on Wednesday. During the hearing on Wednesday senior advocate Sandesh Chouta appearing for Sosale had 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.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 had 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 had further referred to another tweet at 3.15 pm on June 4 which he mentions about victory parade details, celebration at Chinnaswamy Stadium and about passes.He thereafter had 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".He also pointed to a tripartite agreement 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.It was also argued that Sosale was fleeing away. "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 had 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 had further said that there is a ten hour delay to give documents which the 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.On a query of the court about the time in which grounds of arrest is to be served on the arrested accused. Additional State Public Prosecutor (ASPP) B N Jagadeesha had 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...

Karnataka High Court Allows Interim Release Of RCB's Marketing Head Nikhil Sosale, Others In Bengaluru Stampede FIR

Mustafa Plumber

Tags