Bengaluru Stampede | “ Why Selective Arrests?”: RCB Marketing Head Nikhil Sosale’s Lawyer Questions Arrest In Karnataka HC; Court Rejects Interim Bail
Thank you for reading this post, don’t forget to subscribe!
Today, On 10th June, RCB Marketing Head Nikhil Sosale’s lawyer questioned the legality of his arrest, asking “Why selective arrests?” as the Karnataka High Court rejected interim bail and posted the matter for further hearing tomorrow morning.
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court heard the bail plea of Nikhil Sosale, the Marketing Head of Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB), in connection with the Chinnaswamy Stadium stampede case.
The case was presented before Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar. Sosale’s lawyer, Senior Advocate Sandesh Chouta, strongly argued that his client’s arrest was illegal and violated legal procedure.
Also Read: CID to Probe Bengaluru Stadium Stampede That Killed 11: Karnataka Govt Tells High Court
Chouta informed the court that a recent Supreme Court ruling emphasized the significance of individual liberty, stating that “arrest is illegal, they can’t be kept in jail for even a second.”
He also referenced Section 55 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), noting,
“When Power to arrest is given to anyone else, that too has to be in writing and notified when arresting.”
In response, the Karnataka High Court remarked that, according to Section 55, “arrest could not have been made without proper authorization.”
He questioned,
“During remand, under whose authority was the CCB involved? If the CCB needs to be brought in, a senior officer must authorize it… After all, the CID operates as an independent unit. Only administrative matters go through the DIG and IG.”
Chouta also raised concerns regarding the City Crime Branch (CCB) involvement in the remand proceedings.
Meanwhile, the government representatives explained that the City Crime Branch (CCB) was established specifically to address major crimes in Bengaluru. Unlike regular police stations, the CCB operates with enhanced authority based on official notification, granting it legal jurisdiction for such investigations.
Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) B.N. Jagadeesha informed the court,
“The legal position is clear, and we will demonstrate this. We will submit official documentation showing the CCB’s jurisdictional authority, specifically the authorization issued by the appropriate senior police officer.”
The APP also noted that Sosale was arrested on June 6, stating, “Every minute… we are compiling timeline.”
The High Court inquired,
“Can they show what happened between June 5 night and June 6 morning, and why CCB came in?”
Chouta contended that his client was not provided with the necessary legal documents at the time of the arrest. He further alleged that the arrest was conducted directly under the Chief Minister’s orders.
The High Court remarked,
“We shall examine these submissions. The matter stands adjourned for 2:30 PM hearing.”
Chouta presented a detailed timeline, indicating that an individual named Shamant was arrested at 3:00 AM by officers from Ashok Nagar Police Station, followed by Sosale’s arrest at 3:30 AM by CCB officers, and additional arrests at 4:00 AM. He added that five police officers had been suspended as a result of these events.
In response, the APP stated,
“The proceedings are fully compliant, I raise no objections to the process.”
Chouta countered, saying,
“My Lordship, four individuals have been taken into custody without proper determination of their alleged involvement in the matter.”
He emphasized that even if an offense carries a sentence of over seven years, an arrest must still be based on valid grounds. He questioned,
“As the Marketing Head of RCB, I must ask: what constitutes the reasonable basis for my client’s arrest in this matter?”
The High Court then inquired, “Is he mentioned in the FIR?”
Chouta responded, “No my lord, only the entity is mentioned.”
The court observed that Sosale was arrested solely due to his connection with RCB, to which Chouta replied,
“No evidence against me even after the order of the CM came?”
The court highlighted that another individual, referred to as A-4, was also arrested despite not being an employee of DNA. Chouta questioned,
“Why is the arrest selective? Police officials have been suspended, the intelligence chief is transferred, and a political advisor removed, why aren’t they arrested? Why these selective arrests?”
He contended that the case needed a thorough investigation, stating, “Ultimately, (when it comes to mens rea) who had any intention to cause stampede?”
The court inquired about the suo motu Public Interest Litigation (PIL) mentioned earlier. Chouta responded that the opposing side had requested an adjournment.
The High Court then asked, “Who tweeted?”
Chouta answered,
“The tweet was made by the RCB handle inviting fans to join the celebration. The same was done by the government handle.”
At this point, Advocate General Shashi Kiran, representing the state government, stated,
“We can’t argue today, I need time… Kindly grant time till tomorrow. Milords, my office has been working since 5 AM.”
Chouta requested the court to consider granting interim bail for Sosale, saying, “Consider interim bail my lord.”
However, the AG opposed the motion, saying, “Please don’t, no case made.”
After hearing both sides, the High Court remarked, “Ok, heard you both. Prayer for interim bail rejected while adjourning.”
The court concluded the day’s hearing by stating, “Matter to be heard tomorrow at 10:30 AM. We will pass an order tomorrow.”
Earlier, Nikhil Sosale, the Marketing and Revenue head of Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB), has approached the Karnataka High Court to contest his arrest related to the stampede at Chinnaswamy Stadium in Bengaluru.
A tragic stampede, On June 4, occurred outside the stadium, resulting in 11 deaths and 56 injuries when a large crowd gathered to celebrate the Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) cricket team’s victory in the Indian Premier League (IPL).
He argued that the arrest was illegal, arbitrary, and not in line with the law. He asserted that he was taken into custody without any evidence and even before the police had performed a preliminary inquiry. Consequently, he has requested a declaration that his arrest is illegal.
