Chinnaswamy stampede: Karnataka HC directs release of RCB marketing head and three others

Others who got relief from the High Court are Sunil Mathew, Kiran Kumar S and Shamant N P Mavinakere of the event organising company DNA Entertainment Networks Pvt Ltd, who were also arrested on June 6.

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court on Thursday ordered release of four accused persons arrested in connection with the stampede at the M Chinnaswamy stadium on June 4, 2025.

Justice SR Krishna Kumar directed the state government as well as the prison authorities to release immediately Nikhil Sosale, Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) Marketing Head and Sunil Mathew, Kiran Kumar S, and Shamant N P Mavinakere, all employees of the DNA Entertainment Networks Private Ltd, the event management company.

The court has directed the petitioners to execute personal bonds worth Rs one lakh with sureties and also imposed conditions that they shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses, shall cooperate with the investigation both by the police and the enquiry commissions and shall also deposit their passports before the trial court within a period of two weeks.

The petitioners had challenged their arrest on infirmities such as not providing the grounds of arrest, arrest without jurisdiction and arrest without an investigation.

The FIR had named the entities; Royal Challengers Sports Pvt Ltd (RCSPL), DNA Networks and Karnataka State Cricket Association (KSCA). The petitioners were arrested for offences under BNS sections 115, 118, 190, and 132.

The court noted that the petitioners were not named as accused persons in the FIRs and before executing the arrest, it is absolutely essential for the police to have credible information that the petitioners had committed a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years.

“According to the respondents (police), they caused the arrest of the petitioners since they were holding top positions in RCB and DNA and were therefore responsible for the alleged offences; the said contention cannot be accepted in the light of the undisputed fact that there is no material whatsoever to show the proximate cause or a live nexus between the petitioners who were mere employees/Directors/officials of RCB and DNA and in the absence of any material to establish their culpability for the commission of the offences, prior to their arrest, the mere fact that they were employees/Directors/officials could not have been made the basis by the respondents to arrest the petitioners, who would be entitled to be released on interim bail,” the court said.

On the petitioners’ contention regarding the grounds of arrest, the court noted that except changing the name and designation, all the four grounds and reasons for arrest are exactly identical. The court said that in the absence of any other sufficient or corroborative material, the police were clearly not justified in causing the arrest based on flimsy and untenable reasons which is impermissible in law.

“A perusal of the material on record would indicate that at the time of causing arrest of the petitioners the investigating officer has not furnished the required checklist/mandatory documents such as arrest intimation, memorandum of arrest, grounds of arrest, inspection memo in accordance with the guidelines mandated in Arnesh Kumar’s case and DK Basu’s case (Apex Court judgements). Therefore, on this score also, I am of the considered opinion that the arrest of the petitioners is vitiated and is liable to be quashed,” Justice Krishna Kumar said.

On the question of jurisdiction, the court noted that after the stampede case was handed over to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), it was only the CID which could have continued the investigation and executed the arrest. “…thereby leading to the sole inference that the subsequent arrest of the petitioners by the Cubbon park/Ashoknagar police on 06.06.2025 between 3 am and 5 am was prima facie illegal and without jurisdiction or authority of law which is yet another circumstance which would vitiate the impugned arrest,” the court said.