Bengaluru stampede: Karnataka High Court grants interim bail to RCB marketing head Nikhil Sosale, 3 others

The four accused petitioners in this case were arrested on June 6 based on three First Information Reports (FIRs) registered the previous day. Arguing for the petitioners, senior advocate Sandesh Chouta had questioned the justification for an arrest without conducting an investigation that would implicate them in said offences. It was also argued that with the case having been transferred to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) on June 5, neither the regular police nor the Central Crime Branch (CCB) had the authority to carry out arrests. It was further stated that the arrests were not based on FIRs but rather the instructions of the chief minister on June 5 at a press conference.

Opposing the bail plea on behalf of the State was Advocate General Shashikiran Shetty, arguing that all necessary documents had been provided. He also stated that while the case had been officially transferred to the CID on June 5, the investigation was handed over to the agency only after the arrests. Till then, the Cubbon Park police carried out the investigation, with the CCB being deputed by them for the arrests. With regard to Sosale, he also pointed out that he appeared to have been fleeing, taking into account the time of purchase of his flight ticket and his arrest from Kempegowda International Airport.

Having heard the respective arguments, the bench observed in its detailed order that to arrest without a warrant, “It was absolutely essential for the respondent Police to receive credible information that the petitioners had committed a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years and the respondents should have also recorded reasons to believe in writing on the basis of the said credible information that the petitioners had committed the alleged offences.” The court went on to observe that in absence of material or an investigation to establish this, or their specific role in the offences, the arrests appeared to be contrary to law.

“Under these circumstances also, in the absence of any material to incriminate the petitioners for the aforesaid offences alleged against the entities, RCB and DNA, coupled with the fact that the petitioners are not named in the subject FIRs, I am of the view that the respondents were not justified in causing the arrest of the petitioners without any investigation whatsoever prior to their arrest,” observed Justice S R Krishna Kumar.

The high court also did not accept the State’s contentions with regard to the timing of transfer of the case to the CID, which was based on a 2015 State circular that existing investigating officers should continue investigation until the CID takeover, noting that it was, “applicable only to the cases where there was incomplete documentation by the local investigation officers who have been directed to continue investigation in relation to mandatory provisions like post-mortem examination, etc.”

While granting interim bail in this order, the judge also noted that since there appeared to be a delay of 10-11 hours after arrest in communicating grounds of arrest to the accused petitioners, the arrest appeared to stand vitiated.

“Further, no explanation whatsoever is offered by the respondents for the delay in furnishing the grounds of arrest and consequently, in the light of the provisions contained in Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Sections 47 and 48 of BNSS, 2023, I am of the view that the arrest of the petitioners would stand vitiated on this ground also,” the judge noted.