Allu Arjun Arrest: Telangana High Court Grants Interim Bail To Allu For 4 Weeks In Stampede Case

The Telangana High Court on Friday (December 13) granted interim bail for four weeks to actor Allu Arjun who had sought quashing of FIR in connection with a stampede which occurred outside a cinema hall in Hyderabad last week when the actor had an unscheduled visit, in which one woman also died.

After hearing the arguments for around two hours Justice Juvvadi Sridevi while dictating the order said, "I'm inclined to give interim bail, for a limited period, following the Arnab Goswami case. Bonds to be given to the Jail superintendent since arrest is made".

During the hearing, the bench while expressing its inclination to grant interim bail orally remarked, "It's actually bothering me. Just because he is an actor, can he be held like this? There are no ingredients...On this earth, he has the right to life and liberty. It can't be taken away by virtue of being an actor".

Earlier in the day, a lunch motion was moved before Justice Sridevi by the counsel appearing for the Actor, which was allowed. At the outset the public prosecutor appearing for the state before the high court said that the actor is not entitled to get any relief. He says that 7 people have been already arrested, and thereafter he sought time to file a response.

When the matter was taken up at 4pm, senior counsel S Niranjan Reddy appearing for the actor argued before Justice Sridevi that to make out case for culpable homicide, there needs to be an intention. Meanwhile, as the hearing was going on in the high court, the actor was produced before a magistrate court and was remanded to judicial custody of 14 days.

"When you read the FIR is does say that AlluArjun knew some death was going to happen?Even the instructions given by the SHO doesn't say that there was a chance of a death to occur. Highest case there can be is of 'death by negligence'. Here the bench may note, is 'somebody doing a rash or negligent act'?," Reddy said.

He recalled an incident when actor Shahrukh Khan was on a train journey to promote his film Raees. He said that the actor had thrown clothes at the station, which lead to a stampede; a case was filed and the court had held that the actor was not criminally liable in that case.

Reddy claimed the deceased woman was on the ground floor where stampede occurred while the actor was on first floor. He further argued that not only the actor, but the Producer also wrote to the theatre informing them about the actor's visit.

"Actor was coming, everybody knew, the Police knew. Here the actor was not even proactively doing anything whereas in SRK's case, the actor threw balls, crowds jumped to grab them," Reddy said.

He further argued charge under Section 118 (voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means) BNS not made out. "It mandates use of dangerous weapons. On the face of it, it's not applicable".

He thereafter said, "Even if S. 106 BNS (causing death by negligence) applies, what is the maximum punishment? 5 years? Arnesh Kumar case comes in. Arrest cannot be made like this (without notice). Sometimes tragic incidents happen. There are umpteen cases, where politicians hold rallies and accidents may happen.Now I'm coming to the next step. Now I am asking for interim bail".

Reddy thereafter pointed to the judgment passed in the arrest of journalist Arnab Goswami and said, "In Arnab's case, court was approached after the arrest was made. I had approached the court prior to the arrest. SC says when there is no prima facie case, the court can grant interim bail".

Reading from the judgment Reddy says, "Deprivation of liberty for even one day is one too many".

Reddy also objected to PP opposing lunch motion. Says this is the law of the land and has been followed by Telangana HC in two cases.

"Our high court is not the only high court, a division bench of the Bombay High court has also permitted," Reddy adds.

He submitted that before Allu Arjun reached the incident spot, the cops were trying to move the persons. He then said that the the actor and the victim were not even on same floor.

"To say this was culpable homicide...I cannot accept. If something goes wrong, the Police will say we are not responsible, somebody else is responsible...This is complete travesty, and infringement of my personal liberty. What SC says is very clear- Interim orders are permitted," he said.

Meanwhile the public prosecutor submitted that the facts of each case are different. The court then however orally asked the public prosecutor, "Can I release the petitioner now? In a quashing petition? First you answer that".

The public prosecutor responded that at this juncture accused Allu Arjun cannot file an Interim Application. He needs to move before appropriate forum (lower court), he added.

The high court however asked, "But they have placed judgments. FIR is before me. And they are arrested. Remand report also is not required".

The public prosecutor submitted that the actor had "knowledge" which is an ingredient of the offences alleged. The court however orally questioned,"What knowledge? They have informed the Police. The instructions of the Police are not placed before us".

Meanwhile Reddy said that remand report made his client's case stronger.

"Now who is conducting the prosecution? The police! So they will try to do everything to avoid responsibility," Reddy said. He claimed that the Police also wanted to be with the actor.

"If the ladyship is not satisfied here, then I will go to trial. But what is the need for custodial inquiry?," Reddy said.

The court the asked, "And most importantly, are the ingredients present?".

The public prosecutor meanwhile continued to oppose the lunch motion. At this stage the bench said, "I think you don't know what happened before lunch. I was not allowing, I was informed that you (PP) were not present. But you have come yourself. Even if this was a common person, I would have allowed it..."

The court thereafter orally asked, "Can his personal liberty be deprived just because he is an actor?". The public prosecutor however maintained that it was the actor's presence that triggered the incident.

Counsel appearing for another accused submitted that the Police were informed about the actor's visit.

The public prosecutor at this stage submitted, "Till it is decided if the matter of interim bail can be decided in a 482 petition, please adjourn the matter. We will bring all facts on record. It's not a case for any relief...". He said that "a little boy is still on ventilator" because of the stampede triggered by the actor's visit. Reddy however said that the production was taking care of all the expenses.

Meanwhile the counsel appearing for certain other accused who have not been arrested submitted that Section 105 BNS (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) is not made out in the present case.

Counsel pointed to section 105 and said that the essential ingredient is 'the intention' to cause death or bodily injury which was not present in the present case. "There has to be intention, knowledge, bodily injury", he said. He further pointed to the complaint and the FIR and submitted that the ingredients are again not made out.

He thereafter submitted that when somebody dies of suffocation there is no intention and it is purely negligence. The counsel read the remand document and pointed out that the prosecution has used the word 'negligence'. He said that the remand report says that 'without any prior information the makers of Pushpa 2 held the event'.

He thereafter pointed to an 'intimation for bandobast' dated December 2. At this stage the court asked if there was any acknowledgment of this document. To this the counsel said that the assistant commissioner of police had signed it and acknowledged it.

He thereafter pointed to a government order permitting screening of additional shows of the movie. He then said, "Now the remand says there was no prior intimation". As per the remand case, the actor's security had pushed the people present causing one of the victims to allegedly feel suffocated.

The court however orally asked if it amounted to negligence. To this the counsel responded that assuming without admitting, even if it was negligence the accused persons shouldn't go to prison.

The court thereafter asked the public prosecutor about the specific allegation against Accused no.s 4-8 and whether the offences alleged are attracted against them. To this the public prosecutor said, "Knowingly the accused went there, knowing very well that some untoward incident would happen. But he still went. Police had instructed the actor not to go after seeing the huge crowds, but accused showed sheer negligence in showing precautionary measures to take adequate arrangements".

The court however orally enquired about the material to this effect and further asked if quashing can be maintained at this stage. To this senior advocate S Niranjan Reddy appearing for the actor said that quashing plea when it is filed, interim bail can be granted.

However the public prosecutor interjected and said, "But remand is already filed. Accused cannot simply file an IA (in quashing petition) and get a interim bail".

The court orally said that while it agreed with the state's counsel however since the senior counsel appearing for the actor had submitted that the quashing plea is maintainable the court wanted to hear arguments on the same.

The public prosecutor however said that the petition was moved at 2:30 pm today and sought time to respond. He added that there was no urgency and urged the court to hear the matter on Monday, December 16 as the first case.

Case title: Allu Arjun v State of Telangana and Another

CRLP 15270/2024