Today, On 11th June,In the RCB stampede case, the Karnataka High Court questioned the arrest of Nikhil Sosale, saying, “You can’t arrest someone just because they came to your house,” and raised concerns about due process violations.
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court heard petitions filed by four individuals, including senior RCB official Rajesh Sosale, who were arrested after the tragic stampede incident at Bengaluru’s Chinnaswamy Stadium.
The High Court reserved its decision regarding the interim bail request from the marketing head of RCB.
The case is being heard by Justice SR Krishna Kumar.
During the proceedings, the judge asked,
“When is the hearing on the PIL?”
The Advocate General (AG) replied,
“Tomorrow. We will tell as far as judicial commission report.”
In response, the judge remarked,
“Nothing can happen in just 1-2 days.”
The AG then alleged that,
“RCB has suppressed tweets also mylord in their petition.”
He further added,
“They are 2 billion dollar companies.”
At this point, the High Court judge intervened and said,
“Limit ourself to individuals here.”
The AG replied,
“They are in USA, they won’t come.”
Also Read: CID to Probe Bengaluru Stadium Stampede That Killed 11: Karnataka Govt Tells High Court
Senior advocate Chouta, appearing for one of the arrested persons, argued,
“This arrest is illegal. There can’t be a bigger prejudice than this. Without any investigation, just because CM asked to arrest, RCB people are being…”
When the AG tried to justify the arrest by saying,
“If a person comes to my house can I not arrest him mylord?”
The judge responded firmly, “You can’t, it’s a crime.”
The AG clarified, “
“If he is to rob then?”
The judge replied,
“This debate is never ending.”
Chouta pointed out serious irregularities in the arrest procedure.
He said,
“At 3:30 am Sosale was arrested without any reasons given. Till 4:30 am even after police arrested, no…” (again, the sentence was cut but indicated lack of due process).
He further added,
“The arrest intimation does not mention any time. Whose duty is it to provide this, the accused or the arresting officer? The arrest memo, inspection memo, and grounds of arrest lack any mention of time. Now they might claim they have provided all the details, but when.”
Chouta gave a detailed timeline saying,
“3:30 am there is arrest, 1 intimation at 8:20 am and documents after 2 PM. 10 hours of delay mylord. The whole arrest is bad in law.”
The AG tried to justify the state’s action again, saying,
“Company flouted law and didn’t take license mylord.”
“Restrict to individuals not to company.”
The AG tried to insist that the individual was responsible on behalf of the company. The judge asked,
“The petitioner is expected to obtain the license on behalf of the…”
The judge reminded him,
“Who is making that claim? When the State keeps referring to ‘the company’?
He further added,
‘The company is this or that’,do not equate the individual petitioners with the company itself.”
The AG replied,
“The petitioner is expected to obtain the license on behalf of the…”
Interrupting, the judge again noted,
“We keep making this mistake of conflating individuals with the company itself.”
The AG defended the arrest saying,
“But Sosale is the highest-ranking official in RCB.”
However, the judge made it clear,
“He works in marketing, he isn’t even a director. Those of us practicing commercial law know better.”
The AG continued to insist,
“He is marketing head mylord, he was fleeing Bengaluru.”
The judge asked,
“Who else? One individual is not company.”
The AG said, “He is one of the top.” B
But the judge replied, “Individual can’t be responsible.”
Finally, the AG submitted, “As per us we have found the correct person in Sosale.”
When the judge asked for the exact reason for arrest, he said, “Your reason of arrest is he is the person responsible for the event…” The AG confirmed, “Yes Mylord.”
Chouta pointed out,
“Deputy CM invited people to state for event.”
The AG quickly opposed, saying, “No, it was RCB only.”
The court is now closely examining the procedural lapses and the distinction between personal and corporate liability, as the matter involves high-profile individuals and serious questions about state action, police conduct, and the rights of the arrested.