Karnataka HC adjourns RCB plea against stampede case, state agrees not to take coercive action

The HC noted a “gentleman’s understanding” between the advocates for the state and the lawyers of the petitioners that the Karnataka police will not take any coercive action against officials of the two firms in the form of arrest until Wednesday and that the officials of the two firms will not attempt to leave the country.

The HC, meanwhile, adjourned to Tuesday the hearing of bail pleas filed by Nikhil Sosale, marketing head at RCB, and Sunil Mathew, a vice-president at the DNA Networks, who were arrested on June 6 in connection with an FIR filed by the Cubbon Park police in central Bengaluru against RCB, DNA and the state cricket association over the June 3 stampede.

Eleven people were killed in the stampede at the M Chinnaswamy cricket stadium in Bengaluru on June 3, which occurred around a victory celebration organised for the IPL-winning RCB team at the stadium operated by the Karnataka State Cricket Association. The event was managed and organised by DNA Network.

The police have alleged that the stampede occurred due to open invitations issued to RCB fans on social media by the private cricket club for a victory parade without obtaining clearances for the event from the Bengaluru police as mandated.

During the arguments on Monday, senior counsel Sandesh Chouta, appearing on behalf of Nikhil Sosale, said the arrest of the RCB marketing executive was vitiated in law since no arrest intimation was provided at the time of his detention and that the arrest was made by the Bengaluru Central Crime Branch police despite the case filed by the Cubbon Park police being transferred to the CID of the Karnataka police.

The advocate for Sosale also argued that the arrests by the Bengaluru police were carried out on the basis of an order of the Karnataka chief minister, which was also stated by Siddaramaiah at a press conference–and not on the basis of investigations.

Advocate-General K M Shashikiran Shetty argued that RCB had declared on June 3 itself in Ahmedabad, where the IPL finals was held, that there would be victory celebrations in Bengaluru and that social media messages were put out at 7 am on June 4 by RCB about a victory parade in Bengaluru, without obtaining permissions from the Bengaluru police.

“A Rs 1,000-crore company (RCB) with an annual revenue of Rs 450 crore has announced a compensation payment of just Rs 10 lakh for the victims,” he said.

The HC adjourned the hearing on the pleas by Sosale and Mathew to June 10 after the advocate-general sought time to respond to arguments that the arrests in the case were carried out by the Bengaluru police even after the case was transferred to the CID.

Last week, the Karnataka HC bench of Justice S R Krishna Kumar granted protection from arrest until June 16 to officials of the Karnataka State Cricket Association, including president Raghuram Bhat. The KSCA is named in the cricket stadium stampede FIR along with RCB and DNA.

On Friday the Karnataka HC granted conditional interim protection from arrest to three KSCA officials, including its president Raghuram Bhat, a former cricketer, in the stampede case.

The KSCA officials have claimed in their HC petition that officials of the event management firm DNA held a meeting with the Bengaluru police on June 3 for holding a celebration event for RCB at the M Chinnaswamy Stadium in the event of RCB winning the IPL finals. The KSCA has said that IPL events are held at the stadium by RCB with event managers DNA Networks.

The bench of Justice S R Krishna Kumar said while posting the case to June 16 that “by way of an interim arrangement and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, the respondents are directed not to take any precipitative / coercive steps”.

A division bench of the HC headed by acting Chief Justice V Kameswar Rao is due to hear a suo motu public interest petition on the stadium stampede deaths on Tuesday.

Last week the division bench posed nine questions to the Karnataka government including “When and who has taken the decision to hold the victory celebration and in what manner?”