In a significant legal development, the Telangana High Court on December 13 granted interim bail for four weeks to actor Allu Arjun, following his involvement in a tragic stampede incident that occurred during an unscheduled visit to a cinema hall in Hyderabad. The stampede resulted in the death of a woman and injuries to several others.
Justice Juvvadi Sridevi presided over the hearing and based her decision on principles established in the Arnab Goswami case, emphasizing that deprivation of liberty, even for a single day, is an infringement of fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. The bench, while granting bail, noted, “Just because he is an actor, can he be held like this? There are no ingredients (in the allegations).”
Case Background
The stampede incident occurred during the actor’s visit to promote his film Pushpa 2, causing a chaotic crowd surge outside the cinema. The police filed an FIR against Allu Arjun and other accused under various sections, including culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 IPC) and negligence. The actor was subsequently remanded to 14 days of judicial custody by a magistrate court.
High Court Hearing
The hearing began with senior advocate S. Niranjan Reddy, representing Allu Arjun, challenging the charges and seeking interim bail. Reddy argued that there was no intent or culpability on the actor’s part, as required under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. Citing precedent, Reddy highlighted the case of actor Shah Rukh Khan, who was cleared of liability in a similar incident involving a stampede during a promotional event.
He further contended that the actor’s presence at the cinema hall was pre-informed to the police, and the alleged negligence could not be solely attributed to him. “The actor was on the first floor, while the deceased was on the ground floor,” Reddy argued, asserting that the police had also approved the event beforehand.
Public Prosecutor’s Argument
The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea, arguing that the actor’s visit triggered the stampede despite police instructions to avoid the event. He asserted that the actor’s actions amounted to negligence, resulting in loss of life. The prosecutor also contended that interim bail in a quashing petition was procedurally inappropriate and sought time to file a detailed response.
Court’s Observations
During the proceedings, Justice Sridevi expressed reservations about the custodial interrogation of Allu Arjun. She remarked, “On this earth, he has the right to life and liberty. It can’t be taken away by virtue of being an actor.”
The bench questioned whether the ingredients of culpable homicide or negligence were present in the allegations. Justice Sridevi noted that the police had been informed about the event in advance, undermining the claim of negligence. The court also acknowledged that tragic incidents during public events are not uncommon and do not necessarily imply criminal liability.
Interim Bail Granted
After a thorough two-hour hearing, the court granted Allu Arjun interim bail for four weeks, requiring him to furnish bonds to the jail superintendent. The judge emphasized the importance of protecting personal liberty, even during pending legal proceedings.
Legal Significance
This case underscores the judicial balancing act between individual liberty and criminal accountability. The court’s reliance on Arnab Goswami v. Union of India reiterates the judiciary’s commitment to safeguarding fundamental rights, especially when charges lack prima facie evidence of intent or culpability.
The matter will now proceed, with the High Court expected to hear further arguments on the quashing petition and the legality of the charges filed against the actor.
Case Title: Allu Arjun and Others v. State of Telangana
Key Provisions Discussed: Section 304 IPC, Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty)
Lawcutor 