Karnataka High Court Denies Bail to RCB's Nikhil Sosale Amid Stadium Tragedy Investigation

Court Proceedings on Stadium Stampede Case

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has refused to grant interim relief to Nikhil Sosale, the marketing head of Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB), in connection with the tragic stadium stampede that resulted in 11 fatalities on June 4.

The court has postponed its decision on Sosale's petition until June 11.

Sosale was apprehended on June 6 by the Central Crime Branch at Kempegowda International Airport in Bengaluru while he was preparing to depart for Dubai.

In his legal petition, Sosale challenged the validity of his arrest, claiming it was influenced by political motives.

Justice S R Krishna Kumar presided over the case, hearing arguments from both Sosale's legal representative and the state before deciding to issue an interim ruling the following day.

Senior Advocate S Chouta, who is defending Sosale, argued that the arrest breached legal protocols, particularly since the investigation had already been assigned to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID).

"They claim that as a superior officer, the CCB has the authority to arrest. However, if such power exists, it must be documented and communicated at the time of arrest," Chouta stated, referencing Section 55 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

"The core issue is about personal freedom. Even if the alleged crime carries a penalty of over seven years, one cannot strip an individual of their liberty without credible evidence and documentation," he added, citing a Supreme Court ruling.

The court also sought clarification regarding the notification that transferred the case to the CID and questioned the sudden involvement of the CCB in the investigation.

"The concern is that the CCB intervened unexpectedly. The public was informed that the CID was handling the investigation, yet the CCB arrested Sosale early in the morning. What transpired in between?" the judge inquired.

Chouta highlighted discrepancies in the timeline and questioned the rationale behind the arrests.

"The first arrest of a freelancer named Shamant occurred at 3 AM by Ashok Nagar Police, followed by Sosale's arrest at 3:30 AM by the CCB. Two additional arrests were made at 4 AM, after which five police officials were suspended. What legal authority permitted the CCB to intervene?" he asked.

He further noted that neither Sosale nor the others arrested had specific roles outlined in the FIR.

"The FIR merely refers to 'entities.' There are no individual names mentioned. Does this mean all members of RCB, KSCA, and DNA are now subject to arrest? The elements of the offense are absent, making it appear arbitrary and selective," Chouta argued.

He also claimed that Sosale was not provided with essential documents at the time of his arrest, which he argued violated due process.

On behalf of the state, Special Public Prosecutor B A Belliyappa, along with Additional Public Prosecutor B N Jagadeesha, stated that they would present documentation to support the CCB's involvement.

"The detention occurred on June 6. We are compiling a comprehensive timeline that will demonstrate how the CCB was engaged through orders from a superior officer. This will be clearly documented," Jagadeesha informed the court.

The judge indicated that he would assess whether the legal procedures between the night of June 5 and the morning of June 6 validate the state's claims.

Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty, representing the state government, requested additional time to present arguments.

When Chouta requested interim bail for Sosale, the AG opposed the motion, asserting that the state's complete response would be provided the next day.

Justice Krishna Kumar noted that Sosale's counsel had been fully heard and scheduled the next hearing for June 11.

The proceedings also addressed the broader implications of the incident, including political developments and administrative responses following the tragedy that resulted in 11 deaths and numerous injuries.

Additionally, the court acknowledged a suo motu PIL related to the incident, which has been postponed to June 12.