The court has reserved its ruling on his petition until June 11, Wednesday.
Sosale was taken into custody on June 6 by the Central Crime Branch. He has questioned the validity of his arrest, claiming that the police actions were swayed by political directives.
In his petition, Sosale alleged that his arrest was ordered by the Chief Minister.
RCB and DNA have approached the court to contest the FIR filed against them related to the June 4 stampede that took place during celebrations for RCB’s first IPL victory a day prior.
Justice S R Krishna Kumar has scheduled the matter for hearing on June 12.
“There exists a gentleman’s understanding — refrain from taking any action until we address the matter,” the judge cautioned the state government, advising against unnecessary detentions. The court also mentioned that the petition involving Sosale, who is already in custody, will be taken up separately at 10.30 am on June 10.
On Monday, Sosale’s attorney informed the court that the RCB official was apprehended on the orders of CM Siddaramaiah.
The RCB official was arrested at Bengaluru Airport while en route to Dubai, based on an FIR filed in the wake of the stampede.
Sosale’s petition challenged the legality of his early morning arrest on June 6 and alleged that police actions were politically motivated.
Justice Krishna Kumar, who is presiding over the case, considered crucial questions regarding jurisdiction, procedure, and the political influence behind the arrest.
Sosale’s attorney, senior advocate Sandesh Chouta, argued that the arrest at 4:30 am on June 6 lacked any legal justification.
“The first question is whether the Chief Minister directed the arrest. The second is whether the police had the authority to arrest Sosale,” Chouta presented.
He emphasized that the arrest was executed by the Central Crime Branch (CCB) and not the police unit assigned to the case. “During an arrest, the individual must be informed of the reason and the identity of the officer making the arrest. None of these protocols were followed,” he contended.
“This arrest was not made as part of an investigation, but rather simply due to directions issued by the Chief Minister,” Chouta asserted, adding that there was no criminal intent (mens rea) involved in an event that was merely a celebration that went awry.
Referencing the D K Basu ruling concerning arrest protocols, Chouta stated, “One cannot simply apprehend someone without informing them of the reasons. My client was with his wife and their two-year-old child. His rights under Article 21 were violated,” argued the petitioner’s lawyer.
Chouta also mentioned that by 2:30 pm on June 5, Karnataka had informed the court that the investigation had been reassigned to the CID, casting doubt on the CCB’s authority.
“Why was the CCB involved when the case had already been transferred to the CID? Even the remand request acknowledged that the CID was responsible for the investigation,” Chouta remarked.
Advocate General Shashikiran Shetty, representing the state, raised objections to the extensive arguments, indicating that they exceeded the scope of the initial petition.
“None of this information is present in Sosale’s pleadings. I need to be made aware of this. This 38-page memo contains much more than what is included in the petition,” he stated, requesting additional time for the state to respond.
Upon the judge’s inquiry regarding whether the Chief Minister had publicly indicated that arrests would follow, the AG noted he would need to confirm and present original documents to the court.
Defending the timing of the arrest, Shetty argued, “The officials were simply fulfilling their responsibilities. It’s not as though he was dining at a restaurant. He was on his way to the international airport at 5 in the morning – what should they have done?” The AG insisted that Sosale’s remand had already been issued, rendering interim relief unnecessary. “An interim order cannot exceed the final order,” he added.
Justice Krishna Kumar also probed whether any prima facie evidence existed at the time of Sosale’s arrest. Citing a Supreme Court ruling in the Arnab Goswami case, the judge noted that interim bail could be granted if such evidence was absent.
The judge remarked: “Setting aside the CID for a moment – this indicates that the Cubbon Park Police transferred the case to Ashok Nagar Police, which subsequently requested the CCB to carry out the arrest. The issue is, once the matter was handed over to the CID, did anyone else retain jurisdiction?” Royal Challengers Sports Limited (RCSL), the parent company of RCB, has insisted that it was wrongly implicated in this case.
RCSL stated that it had clearly communicated via social media that only a limited number of passes would be distributed, and also emphasized that even free passes required pre-registration for entry.
It claimed that the stadium gates, which were scheduled to open at 1:45 pm, did not actually open until 3 pm, leading to a crowd surge.
DNA stated in its petition that the incident resulted from the police’s failure in crowd management and asserted that most police personnel were stationed at the Vidhana Soudha, leaving the stadium understaffed in light of the increasing crowd pressure.
(With PTI inputs)
