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: StateArguing 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: StateHe 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': StateOn 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 arrestQuestioning 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?"....

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

Mustafa Plumber

Tags