Bengaluru, 10 June

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday denied interim relief to Nikhil Sosale, Marketing Head of Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB), in the 4 June stadium stampede that claimed 11 lives here.

The court also reserved its order on his petition till today.

Sosale was arrested on 6 June by theCentral Crime Branch at the Kempegowda International Airport in the City, when he was about to leave for Dubai. In his petition, Sosale questioned the legality of his early morning arrest. He alleged that the police action was influenced by political directives.

The single-judge bench of Justice SR Krishna Kumar decided to pronounce the interim order today.

Senior Advocate S Chouta, representing Sosale, contended that the arrest was made in violation of procedure, especially since the investigation has already been transferred to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID).

“They are saying, as a superior officer, they (CCB) can arrest. But even if that power exists, it must be in writing and communicated at the time of arrest,” Chouta argued, citing Section 55 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). “Ultimately, the question is about liberty,”

The court also sought clarity on the notification transferring the case to the CID and questioned why the CCB suddenly intervened in the investigation.

“The problem is, CCB suddenly comes in. All the public knows is that the investigation was handed to CID. Then in the morning, CCB arrests Sosale. What happened in between?” the judge asked.

Chouta pointed to the inconsistencies in the timeline and questioned the basis of the arrests. He also argued that Sosale and the others arrested had no clear role mentioned in the FIR. “The FIR just refers to ‘entities.’ There’s no naming of individuals. So are all members of RCB, KSCA, DNA fair game for arrest now?”

On the State’s side, Special Public Prosecutor BA Belliyappa appeared along with Additional Public Prosecutor BN Jagadeesha, who said the prosecution would produce documentation to justify the CCB’s involvement.

Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty, representing the State government, sought time to argue the matter.

Justice Krishna Kumar recorded that the petitioner’s counsel had been heard in full and posted the matter for further hearing to 11 June.

The court also noted the mention of a suo motu PIL related to the incident, which has been adjourned to 12 June.