While hearing RCB’s marketing head Nikhil Sosale’s plea against his arrest in connection with a stampede near Chinnaswamy stadium ahead of the team’s 2025 victory celebration, the Karnataka High Court on Monday (June 9) orally asked the State to inform whether the Chief Minister Siddaramaiah had declared that the accused shall be arrested.
During the hearing Sosale’s counsel argued that on June 5 the probe was transferred from Central Crime Branch to CID and in the early hours of June 6 Sosale was arrested; the probe having been transferred Sosale could not have been arrested by the police. It was also argued that the Chief Minister cannot give directions to arrest.
The court however orally asked the State to respond to whether the “Chief Minister use any word that accused shall be arrested” and whether the Central Crime Branch had the power to arrest the petitioner. The advocate general appearing for the State submitted that he shall verify and respond to the same.
After hearing the parties for some time, Justice SR Krishna Kumar in his order dictated, “Petition filed by Nikhil Sosale to be heard tomorrow”.
Arrest not based on inquiry
Senior advocate Sandesh J Chouta appearing for Sosale said, “the question is whether the arrest was legal or illegal. It has happened not based on any inquiry. In our cases arrest has taken at 4.30 am and not by Cubbon park but by CCB at the airport. Since I am saying that this arrest has not happened on the basis of any investigation but on orders of the CM”.
Chouta referred to the sequence of events of the incident and said, “No one had any mens rea in the stampede and it is completely absent in this case. Deputy CM received the IPL team at the Airport. Felicitation took place at Vidhana Soudha and nothing happened. Following which the team went to the stadium”.
He submitted that the RCB team arrived at Chinnaswamy Stadium with Deputy Chief Minister of Karnataka and the event concluded after knowing about the incident outside.
He further said, “After directing inquiry by Urban Deputy Commissioner, the HC took suo-motu cognizance of matter on June 5. After that FIR was registered. By virtue of Government order investigation was transferred to CID on June 6”.
At the court’s query Chouta informed that Sosale has been arrested in FIR No. 123 at 4.30 am registered at Cubbon Park police station on June 6. He further submitted that the State had informed the High Court in the suo-motu proceedings that cases were transferred to CID on June 5.
Meanwhile Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty appearing for the State submitted, “In the entire petition these pleadings are not made at all. These are new pleadings. I need to seek instruction”.
The court however orally asked, “The fact of transfer to CID is not disputed?” The advocate general however said that he will have to take instructions on the grounds that the petitioner was urging.
The court however said, “When (at) 2.30 pm the PIL was taken up you made a statement…So let him (Chouta) develop the arguments. The argument is that at time of arrest CID was investigating.You have admitted it is transferred in afternoon before HC. You will have to now find out”.
The advocate general however said that the order of transfer and how it is done will have to be brought on record, adding that there is a difference between transfer and handing over investigation to CID.
The court however said that the point that Chouta was making is that having transferred investigation to CID, Cubbon park police could not have arrested the petitioner.
Chouta then said, “At 2.30 pm on June 5, the Cubbon Park did not have power to arrest. Around 9pm decisions are taken by the Chief Minister. Decision is taken to arrest officials (of) RCB, DNA and KSCA”.
Chouta further argued that a Press meet was held and these decisions were convened, and the same has appeared in both electronic and print media.
‘If there is an FIR can CM not say that arrest will be made?’
The court however asked at this stage, “But tell me if there is an FIR can the CM not say that arrest would be made? Is there anything wrong? He cannot even use the word arrest?”
Chouta said that the CM could not have said so, adding “Right from 1947 privy council has said investigation is discretion of investigating officer”.
The court then orally said, “At best the CM could say that accused would be arrested in accordance with law”.
Chouta said that such directions cannot be given by the Chief Minister, and the same would be “illegal”.
The court thereafter asked if it is permissible for Central Crime Branch to arrest after investigation was transferred to the CID?
Chouta said that “CCB is a separate entity”. The court said, “So the Ashok Nagar PS could not have asked the CCB to arrest. The very request made to CCB to arrest is bad in law”.
Chouta thereafter said, “Yes. They arrested me at the Airport when travelling with my wife, no documents of arrest were given to me at the time of arrest. We have filed affidavit of wife who was with the husband at the time of arrest”.
The court asked about the time of arrest and if reasons, grounds of arrest were given. To this Chouta said, “At 2.20 pm we were given. They have not given any time of arrest”.
The high court at this stage asked, “Why have you not taken the pleading of grounds of arrest?”
Chouta meanwhile argued, “I am more on saying that when I was picked up, my liberty under Article 21 is curtailed and I do not even know whether a police officer is arresting me because no documents is given to me”.
Chouta further argued that in the remand application it was said that investigation is transferred to CID; he thereafter questioned the power of the Cubbon Park police to arrest him and produce him before magistrate court. “I was not given any notice milord and they say I was fleeing away,” he added.
The high court thereafter remarked, “There are so many police stations and other agencies involved, no one knows who is doing what, until they explain. SC order in the case of Arnab Goswami says interim bail can be granted. CCB is working overtime and going everywhere”.
Meanwhile Advocate General Shetty said that if the person “takes a ticket at 4 am” then the CCB has to do its job.
At this Chouta said, “CCB officials went at different locations”. The court asked if total 4 arrests were made and all these persons were before the court, to which Chouta replied in the affirmative.
Chouta said, “The decision was conveyed that all police officials be kept under suspension…”.
Did CM use words that accused shall be arrested? Court asks State
The court however said that let the respondents answer on “cabinet meeting and validity of CCB to arrest”.
It thereafter asked, “Did the CM use any word that accused shall be arrested?” The advocate general at this stage said, “That is not the issue here milord. I will have to verify milords. Kindly see the petition look at the prayer. I will have to answer what is in the petition milord not beyond that. Maintainability of the petition is my preliminary objection”.
The court however asked the State to answer on the aspect “whether CM mentioned those words and whether CCB arrest and was having power to do it”.
The court further remarked, “Before the court you have used the word investigation is transferred to CID”. To this the Advocate General said that investigation was not transferred it was handed over.
The court however said, “You filed a memo before this court (in suo motu), about transfer. Transfer must have taken place before arrest is it not a simple inference”.
It thereafter said, “How did the CCB or Cubbon park have the power to arrest then. We will hear this matter at 10.30 am tomorrow. So far as this petition is concerned since Friday till today…I will post it at 10.30 am and answer these questions”.
Chouta at this stage urged that the interim relief was asked saying that arrest is illegal. However the advocate general said that interim bail cannot be granted until court arrives at conclusion that arrest is illegal.
The court thereafter said, “Relist the matter for hearing tomorrow”.
The court said, “Interim relief sought for cannot be granted because it amounts to granting final relief is that not your (AG) argument?” The advocate general submitted that staying of arrest cannot be done because petitioner has been remanded.
The court said that the discretion to grant interim relief or not is left to the court and asked the advocate general to argue on petitioner’s interim relief prayer.
The advocate general however asked the court to finally hear the matter.
The court thereafter listed the matter on Tuesday.
