Sonu Nigam.
Credit: Facebook/@SonuNigamSpace
Bengaluru: In a relief to singer Sonu Nigam, the Karnataka High Court on Thursday passed an interim order directing the Bengaluru City police not to file chargesheet until the next date of hearing and not to take coercive steps against him till filing of the final report if he cooperates in the investigation. The singer was booked for allegedly making controversial remarks during a concert. A vacation bench presided over by Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar passed this interim order.
The court further said, “The petitioner is permitted to appear through video conferencing before the investigation officer for the purpose of recording his statement, if so required. Or, if the Investigating Officer wants to record his statement physically, the petitioner shall bear the expenses of the Investigating Officer.”
The alleged incident had happened during the concert at a college in Bengaluru on April 25. The counsel for Sonu Nigam submitted that when some student repeatedly requested to sing a song in Kannada, Sonu Nigam said, “Kannada, Kannada, Kannada. This is why the Pahalgam incident happened.”
A complaint was filed by one Dharma Raj Ananthaiah at the Avalahalli police station in Bengaluru city. The FIR was registered on May 3 for offences under BNS Sections 351(2) (criminal intimidation), 352(1) (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), and 353 (statements conducing to public mischief). According to the complainant, by linking the request for a Kannada song to a terrorist attack, Sonu Nigam has not only insulted Kannadigas but also likened their cultural pride or linguistic identity to violence and intolerance.
Senior Advocate Dhananjay Joshi (appearing on behalf of advocate Kavitha Damodaran), submitted that the complainant in the case was not even present during the concert and the complaint was filed only for the publicity sake. He said that after the said incident, Sonu Nigam sang Kannada songs for over an hour. He further said that none of the ingredients of the alleged offences in the complaint and the FIR are attracted as he had not threatened, insulted any one and also not made, published or circulated any statement with an intent to create or likely to create feelings of enmity on any grounds, hatred or ill-will.
On the other hand, Additional State Public Prosecutor BN Jagadeesh argued that the event was live on YouTube and videos were circulated on social media. He cited the example of Madhya Pradesh High court taking up the suo motu case against a minister there for his comments on Colonel Sophia Qureshi while talking about the Pahalgam related incident. He said the Apex Court has also refused to interfere in the matter relating to the minister on Thursday.
He further said that though the police had sent a notice, both through email and by post, the petitioner has not responded and is not cooperating with the investigation. He assured the court that if the petitioner co-operates with the investigation, the police will not take any coercive action against him.