The Telangana High Court, on Friday (December 13), granted interim bail for four weeks to actor Allu Arjun, who had sought the quashing of an FIR filed in connection with a stampede outside a Hyderabad cinema hall during his unscheduled visit last week. The incident resulted in the death of a woman.
Justice Juvvadi Sridevi, after two hours of arguments, pronounced the order:
“I am inclined to grant interim bail for a limited period, following the principles laid down in the Arnab Goswami case. The bonds shall be submitted to the jail superintendent as the arrest has already been made.”
During the hearing, the bench remarked, “It is troubling me. Can someone be detained simply because he is an actor? There are no ingredients to substantiate the charges. On this earth, he has the right to life and liberty, which cannot be taken away merely due to his status as an actor.”
The actor’s counsel had earlier filed a lunch motion, which was allowed. The state’s public prosecutor opposed the motion, arguing that the actor was not entitled to relief since seven others had already been arrested and sought time to file a response.
At 4 p.m., senior counsel S. Niranjan Reddy, representing Allu Arjun, argued that the case did not meet the criteria for culpable homicide, which requires intent. He pointed out that the FIR failed to establish that the actor had prior knowledge of a potential death.
“At most, the case could be one of negligence. The bench should note whether there was any rash or negligent act. The SHO’s instructions do not indicate a foreseeable death,” Reddy argued.
He cited a similar incident involving actor Shah Rukh Khan during the promotion of his movie Raees, where a stampede occurred, and the courts ruled he was not criminally liable. Reddy further stated that Allu Arjun was on the first floor during the incident, while the deceased woman was on the ground floor.
He added that the theater and the producer had informed authorities about the actor’s visit beforehand, and the police were aware of the event. Comparing it to the Raees case, he noted, “Here, the actor didn’t actively do anything; whereas in SRK’s case, he threw balls, causing crowds to rush.”
Reddy also contended that Section 118 BNS, concerning grievous hurt by dangerous means, was inapplicable since no dangerous weapons were involved. Referring to Section 106 BNS (death by negligence), he argued that its maximum punishment is five years and cited the Arnesh Kumar judgment, which emphasizes the need for notice before arrest in such cases.
Drawing parallels to the Arnab Goswami judgment, Reddy stressed, “The Supreme Court has held that courts can grant interim bail where there is no prima facie case. Depriving liberty for even one day is one too many.”
The public prosecutor, opposing the motion, stated that the actor’s presence had triggered the stampede and that he had knowledge of potential risks, as alleged in the FIR. However, the court questioned this, asking for evidence of such knowledge and the police instructions regarding the event.
Reddy emphasized that the remand report strengthened his client’s case and argued against the necessity of custodial interrogation. He also pointed out inconsistencies in the remand, which claimed there was no prior intimation, despite acknowledgment of an intimation letter for police bandobast.
The bench orally observed, “Can personal liberty be deprived merely because someone is an actor?”
The public prosecutor maintained that the actor acted negligently despite police warnings and requested an adjournment to present more facts. However, Reddy argued that interim bail could be granted in a quashing plea under established legal precedents.
The court ultimately granted interim bail, stating that the actor’s detention was unwarranted and liberty must be protected.
Case Title: Allu Arjun v. State of Telangana and Another
CRLP 15270/2024
