RCB stampede case: Nikhil Sosale custody withheld as Karnataka HC reserves order

New Delhi: The Karnataka Criminal Investigation Department (CID) withheld its request for the custody of four accused in the June 4 Bengaluru stampede case, including Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) marketing head Nikhil Sosale, after the magistrate court flagged the pending legality challenge in the Karnataka High Court. 

The incident near M Chinnaswamy Stadium left 11 dead during a celebratory event following RCB’s maiden IPL title win.

The CID had sought nine days’ custody of Sosale and three officials from event partner DNA Entertainment Networks—Sunil Mathew (Director and VP), Kiran Kumar (Manager), and Shamanth SP (Ticketing Executive)—for further investigation. 

However, defence counsel, led by senior advocate Sandesh Chouta, objected to the plea, citing an ongoing High Court petition challenging Sosale’s June 6 arrest.

The magistrate questioned the urgency of the custody request, given that the High Court was examining the legality of the arrest. 

Assistant Superintendent of Police Jagadeesh, representing the CID, insisted custody was essential, but after consulting the Advocate General, withdrew the plea until the High Court issued its ruling. 

The four accused were subsequently returned to Parappana Agrahara Central Prison.

Meanwhile, in the High Court, Justice S R Krishna Kumar declined interim relief to Sosale and reserved orders on his petition until June 11. 

Sosale has alleged that his early morning arrest at Bengaluru airport, while en route to Dubai, was politically motivated and executed without due process, purportedly at the direction of Chief Minister Siddaramaiah.

Chouta argued that the arrest by the Central Crime Branch (CCB)—a unit not authorised to investigate the case—violated arrest protocols as outlined in the D K Basu judgment. 

He said Sosale was neither informed of the grounds for arrest nor the identity of the arresting officer, thus violating Article 21 of the Constitution.

Adding to the jurisdictional concerns, Chouta pointed out that the state had already submitted on June 5 that the case had been handed over to the CID, making the CCB’s intervention questionable. “How did the CCB arrest Sosale when the remand application itself acknowledges CID as the investigating agency?” he asked.

The Advocate General, Shashikiran Shetty, countered that the state needed time to respond, arguing that several allegations were not part of the original petition. Defending the arrest, Shetty said officials acted within their remit as Sosale was leaving the country and his remand had already been secured. He denied any undue political influence, saying he would verify whether any arrest directions were given by the CM.

Justice Krishna Kumar took note of the procedural concerns, drawing parallels with the Arnab Goswami case and questioning if prima facie material justified Sosale’s arrest. “If the matter was transferred to CID, did anyone else have the jurisdiction?” the judge asked, referring to the handover chain from Cubbon Park Police to Ashok Nagar Police and then to CCB.

Simultaneously, RCB and DNA Entertainment have moved separate petitions seeking protection from arrest and quashing of the FIR, claiming they were falsely implicated. The High Court, while restraining any coercive action against their officials till June 12, observed that the matter required further deliberation.

Senior advocate C V Nagesh, appearing for RCB and DNA, said the FIR contained composite allegations against Karnataka State Cricket Association (KSCA), RCB, and DNA, with no specific culpability assigned to his clients. He also contended that it was the Chief Minister who invited the public to the event.

However, the AG claimed that social media posts by RCB and DNA announcing the rally without government approval led to a crowd surge, viewed by 13 crore people online. He alleged the gates were opened late, worsening the situation, and held the organisers responsible for the chaos.

Justice Krishna Kumar, however, stated it was too early to conclude whether the trigger was the social media post, the CM’s call, or a lapse in crowd control. “We’re only dealing with a plea for protection from arrest,” the judge noted, adding that the inquiry commission would determine the root cause.

The hearing also touched upon legal interpretations of omission versus criminal act. Nagesh argued that the invoked offences required deliberate acts, not lapses or omissions. “There is no overt act amounting to a cognizable offence under the IPC,” he said.

The High Court has scheduled the next hearing in the matter, including Sosale’s petition, for June 11, while the petitions filed by RCB and DNA against the FIR will be taken up on June 12. 

One more petition involving an already arrested person is also set to be heard that day.