On December 13, the Telangana High Court granted actor Allu Arjun a four-week interim bail while he sought to have an FIR dismissed related to a stampede outside a Hyderabad cinema during an unexpected visit by the actor, which resulted in a woman’s death.
After about two hours of discussions, Justice Juvvadi Sridevi indicated her intention to grant bail, citing a precedent from the Arnab Goswami case.
She stated that the actor’s arrest involved his right to life and liberty, which should not be compromised simply because he is an actor. Earlier in the day, a lunch motion was presented by the actor’s counsel and approved.
The public prosecutor argued against granting relief to Allu Arjun, noting that seven individuals had already been arrested and that he needed time to respond.
During the proceedings, as the actor was being presented in magistrate court for a 14-day judicial remand, senior counsel S. Niranjan Reddy contended that culpable homicide requires intent, which was absent in this case.
Reddy referenced a previous incident involving actor Shahrukh Khan promoting his film “Raees,” where a stampede occurred after Khan threw items into the crowd, and the court found him not criminally liable.
He asserted that the deceased was on a different floor than where the incident took place and pointed out that the producer had notified the theater about the actor’s visit. Reddy argued that although there were claims of negligence, the relevant charges under Section 118 were not applicable since no dangerous weapons were used.
He mentioned that even if negligence was established, the maximum punishment was five years. He criticized the grounds for arrest, stating that sometimes unfortunate incidents occur without fault attaching to the individual.
He further highlighted precedents regarding pre-arrest applications and cited that the Supreme Court allows interim bail when there’s no prima facie case. Reddy reiterated that detaining someone, even for a single day, is excessive, emphasizing the legal principles followed in other high courts as well.
The public prosecutor countered that each case has unique circumstances, but the court questioned what knowledge the actor had that would warrant the charges against him.
The public prosecutor insisted that Allu Arjun had prior knowledge related to the incident, while the court continued to raise doubts about the validity of that claim.
