Introduction:

In Nikhil Sosale v. State of Karnataka (W.P. 16371/2025), the Karnataka High Court, presided over by Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar, on June 10, 2025, critically examined the arrest of Royal Challengers Bengaluru’s (RCB) Marketing Head, Nikhil Sosale, in connection with the Bengaluru stampede that occurred on June 4 near M. Chinnaswamy Stadium during post-match celebrations of the franchise’s 2025 IPL victory.

Sosale, who was arrested in the early hours of June 6 by the Central Crime Branch (CCB), filed a writ petition challenging the legality of his arrest. His primary contentions included the absence of any material implicating him, lack of mention in the FIR, no specific role attributed to him in the incident, and procedural violations under Section 55 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which governs arrests made by subordinate officers.

During initial hearings, Justice Krishna Kumar reserved further proceedings until the Karnataka Advocate General could respond. Sosale’s senior counsel, Sandesh Chouta, cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Vihan Kumar, which held that even a moment of unlawful detention is a violation of fundamental rights. A key issue before the Court is whether the CCB had the legal authority under Section 55 CrPC to arrest Sosale, given the alleged absence of a written delegation. The matter has been listed for continued arguments.

Arguments of the Petitioner (Nikhil Sosale):

Senior Advocate Sandesh Chouta asserted that Sosale’s arrest was entirely unjustified and procedurally flawed. The main points of the petitioner’s argument included:

1. No Direct Allegations or Evidence: Sosale was not named in the FIR and no role was attributed to him in the events leading to the stampede.
2. Violation of Fundamental Rights: Citing Vihan Kumar v. Union of India, Chouta emphasized that any illegal arrest—even momentary—amounts to a breach of fundamental rights.
3. Lack of Authority Under CrPC: He argued that under Section 55 CrPC, subordinate officers require written authorization to effect an arrest without a warrant. No such delegation was shown.
4. Improper Role Attribution: As RCB’s marketing head, Sosale was not involved in planning or organizing the event. His role was peripheral and lacked mens rea.
5. Selective Action: While senior police officials who oversaw the event were only suspended, Sosale—an auxiliary figure—was arrested, which was arbitrary and discriminatory.
6. Procedural Irregularities: Sosale was neither served with an arrest memo nor provided a custody note. His arrest lacked documentation, violating procedural safeguards.
7. Alternative Evidence Sources Ignored: Chouta argued that CCTV footage and police oversight should have guided the investigation, rather than arbitrarily targeting an administrative executive.

Arguments of the Respondents (Prosecution and State):

Appearing for the State, Additional State Public Prosecutor B.N. Jagadeesha and Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty defended the CCB’s actions. Key contentions included:

1. Jurisdiction and Authority: They argued that the CCB, by official notification, is recognized as superior to local police stations in Bengaluru and has authority to arrest in serious criminal matters.
2. Ongoing Investigation: The prosecution emphasized that the arrest was part of a developing investigation, and procedural compliance—such as arrest memos and internal delegation orders—was underway.
3. Emerging Evidence: Although Sosale was not named in the FIR, investigators had uncovered a promotional tweet encouraging public gathering and a WhatsApp message that may indicate his involvement in enabling the situation.
4. No Presumption of Guilt: The State argued that arrest does not presume guilt but enables proper inquiry. Additional documentation and delegation orders would be produced before the Court.
5. Request for Time: Given the complexity and public sensitivity of the case, the prosecution requested more time to collate documents, including CCB’s organizational hierarchy, arrest authorizations, and the timeline of events.

Court’s Observations and Interim Analysis:

Justice Krishna Kumar heard the matter in detail and made the following interim observations:

1. Section 55 CrPC Scrutiny: The Court focused extensively on whether the CCB officers who arrested Sosale had lawful written authority, as mandated under Section 55. The Advocate General acknowledged the concern and sought time to present the relevant documents.
2. Authority of CCB vs. Cubbon Park Police: The bench stated that even if the CCB is superior, it cannot override the requirements of Section 55 without valid delegation:

“CCB, notwithstanding being superior to this officer of Cubbon Park, did not have the power to arrest in view of Section 55.”

1. Procedural Demands: The Court demanded submission of the following:
2. • The arrest timeline (June 5–6)
   • Arrest and remand memos

1. • Notification empowering CCB officers
   • Custody records
   • Justification for Sosale’s arrest
2. Selective Action Concerns: The Judge questioned why Sosale was arrested while police officials who presided over the event were merely suspended.
3. Content Attribution: The Court sought clarification on whether the tweet that allegedly incited the crowd was authored by Sosale or by the RCB social media team, and whether there were any instructions from the Chief Minister’s Office or police approving the event.

The Court framed the core issues around:

• Mens rea
• Lawful delegation of arrest powers
• Fair and equal treatment of similarly placed officials
• The threshold between criminal culpability and administrative lapses

The matter was adjourned to the following morning for further arguments. The Court directed the Advocate General to submit a complete set of documents and permitted the petitioner to file written submissions outlining final arguments.