A prominent Telugu film star, Allu Arjun was recently involved in a legal row after a tragic stampede broke out at Sandhya Theatre in Hyderabad on December 4, 2024, when the much-awaited film Pushpa 2 was released. The actor’s visit to the theatre during the 9:30 PM show created a ruckus among the thousands of fans which unfortunately and incidentally caused death of a 39-year-old woman namely Revathi due to overcrowding and suffocation and injury to her little son aged 9 years. The Victim was rushed to the hospital but declared dead on arrival.
This sad incident led the husband of Victim to lodge a complaint with the local police station. The Police took cognizance of the complaint and registered the First Information Report (FIR) on December 5, 2024 and charged Allu Arjun amongst others under Sections 105 (Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder), 118(1) (voluntarily causing hurt or grievance hurt by dangerous weapon or means), and 3(5) (criminal act done by several persons for a common intent) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
Before his arrest, Allu Arjun’s lawyers, led by Senior Advocate S. Niranjan Reddy, filed a Criminal Petition on December 11, 2024, inter-alia seeking for quashing of the said FIR and in the interim stay of all further proceedings including arrest. While the said Petition was pending hearing, Allu Arjun was arrested by Police on December 13, 2024 at around 1.30 pm. Immediately, the matter was moved before the High Court of Telangana on December 13, 2024, and was heard by Justice Juvvadi Sridevi for Interim Bail.
Arguments Advanced On Behalf Of Allu Arjun
It was submitted that the incident occurred due to failure of proper arrangement of proper security measures and non-deployment of adequate police personals. The criminal liability cannot be attributed to the Accused just because he was present at the gathering. There is no mens rea on the part of Accused in commission of the alleged offences and the allegations do not constitute the alleged offenses. Relying upon section 105 of the BNS, it was submitted that there was no intention to which was an important element missing in this case. While drawing reliance from Supreme Court judgments, he submitted that in the absence of a bodily injury caused with no intent, no offence would fall under Section 105. Instead, Mr. Reddy argued that the offense at highest will fall within Section 106 (death by negligence), which is nothing but a bailable offense and punished with imprisonment not more than five years, as opposed to Section 105 being a non-bailable offence. He also argued against Section 118, which involves voluntarily causing hurt or grievance hurt by dangerous weapon or means, as Allu Arjun was on the first floor of the theatre, whereas the Victim was seated on the ground floor, making any direct causation implausible. Further, another significant question of law raised during the proceedings was whether interim bail could be granted during the pendency of a quashing petition. Mr. Reddy cited landmark cases, including the Judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the matter of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra and others (2021), where the Supreme Court emphasised the importance of timely relief to prevent unnecessary delay and prayed for Interim Bail.
Arguments Of The Public Prosecutor
On the contrary, the Public Prosecutor submitted that there are serious allegations levelled against the Accused and he is not entitled for any relief as sought. Accused has not sought prior permission from Police proceeded to watch the film which led to tragic incident. He submitted that no interim bail can be granted in the quashing petition, where the Accused is already arrested.
Court’s Observations
Court observed that perusal of remand diary indicates that management of Sandhya theatre addressed a Letter dated 02.12.2024 to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Chikkadpally Police Station (duly acknowledged by Assistant Commissioner of Police) and sought permission to provide security measures at Sandhya 70 MM Theatre in view of arrival of movie team which includes the male and female leads of the film and other actors, makers of the film. The film production unit addressed a Letter dated 04.12.2024 and sought permission to screening of premiere show with all safety precautions. As such, the Court held that it is a fit case where the Accuses should be granted interim bail. The court also remarked that just because the Accused is an Actor, he should not be deprived of his personal liberty even for a single day. Accordingly, the Court granted Allu Arjun an interim bail for four weeks subject to reasonable restrictions as directed in the order.
Conclusion
Cases like this raise a significant concern around administrative functioning, the mode and manner of investigation and more particularly, the law and order being taken for granted. This high-profile case, now gaining national attention, underscores the interplay between celebrity influence, public safety, and the legal principles of intent and negligence. The victim and his family suffered a loss which can never be compensated in terms of money. However, questions such as who was at fault, whether it was the police authorities or theatre management, or the actor, remain to be answered. The arrest of the prominent actor was nothing but the climax scene of any film. The actor’s statement that “the issue is not the arrest but the manner in which he was arrested from his bedroom without even allowing him to change his clothes”, questions integrity of police officials acting in violation of fundamental rights of the Accused and guidelines on arrest. The Victim’s husband’s statement that he is ready to withdraw the complaint and it’s not actors fault to be there, speaks volumes of police authorities conduct. It appears that the act of police officials is to cover up their own fault i.e. failing to deploy adequate personnel to manage the crowd. This indicated that the authorities were now shifting responsibility to the actor and theatre owners to deflect criticism. On the other hand, the arrest took place, hearing given and bail granted all in one day, significantly indicates that the justice is not slow, but it all depends as to who is the one behind the bars. While events will unfold once the trial starts, this case is also an eye opener for the Actor’s / film fraternity/ organizers to be more vigilant and responsible for their conduct during promotional events.
Authors: Vivek Dwivedi & Ronit Doshi