Supreme Court Revokes Bail of Congress MLA Vinay Kulkarni in Yogesh Gowda Murder Case

Happy celebrations outside of Bengaluru’s M. Chinnaswamy Stadium on June 4, 2025, in honor of Royal Challengers Bangalore’s first Indian Premier League victory in eighteen years, turned tragic when a massive crowd surge resulted in a stampede that claimed eleven lives and left more than fifty injured.

The stampede was caused by a tremendous crowd surge. As the survivors recalled the mayhem of barriers falling down and people stacking up at departure points, concerns soon arose over the appropriateness of the planning, crowd control measures, and chain of command among the authorities responsible for public safety.

Two days after the event, social activist H.M. Venkatesh filed an official complaint at the Cubbon Park Police Station, citing Virat Kohli among the individuals named in the complaint.

He claimed that Virat Kohli’s presence and behavior at the felicitation march had contributed to the fatal crush.

In his plea, Venkatesh said that the spectacle of Kohli addressing supporters and the following enthusiasm “incited” viewers to surge closer to the barriers, so creating a situation in which small disruptions swiftly escalated into a crush that posed a threat to the lives of those who were present.

The complaint has been registered under the appropriate parts of the Indian Penal Code, and it will be a part of the current inquiry into the disaster that occurred at the stadium, according to sources inside the police department.

Officials from law enforcement have clarified that Kohli’s name in the FIR does not equate to formal charges until the investigation yields prima facie evidence of wrongdoing. This is despite the fact that initial arrests focused on organisers from DNA Entertainment Private Limited for alleged culpable homicide that did not amount to murder and endangering public safety.

A person is subject to a maximum sentence of two years in jail, a fine, or both under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for “causing death by rash or negligent act” if it is determined that their actions directly contributed to the occurrence of deaths by recklessness or negligence.

For More Updates & Regular notes, Join Our WhatsApp group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators )

In the event that the investigation reveals that Kohli’s exhortations or gestures amounted to a “rash” act that put lives in danger, the prosecution may consider invoking Section 304A. Alternatively, more serious charges under Sections 336 to 338 may be applicable if it is determined that his behavior would have put the public in danger or caused grievous harm.

However, legal experts point out that there are enormous obstacles to overcome in order to assign criminal guilt to a sporting figure in such a scenario. Senior counsel R. Vedachalam notes that in order to prove a causative relationship between Kohli’s activities and the stampede, it is necessary to provide evidence that he owed a legal duty of care to the audience.

This is a standard that is difficult to be fulfilled in the absence of direct control over event logistics or barrier management . In the past, the Supreme Court has ruled that culpable murder proceedings under the Indian Penal Code cannot be based solely on mere presence or speech if there is no evidence of actionable carelessness.

In response to questions from the media, the Bengaluru Police Department highlighted that the complaint against Kohli will be investigated alongside information about event permits, crowd-management plans, and video footage that captured the dynamics of the panic.

In order to chart the flow of visitors and uncover any breaches in coordination between private organizers, the Karnataka State Cricket Association, and law-and-order authorities, investigators have already acquired CCTV footage from neighboring streets and are currently examining telephone data related to the event.

Despite the fact that the FIR is still in its formative stages, the simple inclusion of Kohli’s name poses a risk to the organization’s credibility. It is common practice for corporate sponsors to include morality provisions in endorsement contracts.

These clauses provide the sponsors the authority to stop or cancel endorsement relationships in the event that a celebrity is accused of significant legal wrongdoing. Furthermore, if the relatives of the victims decide to file civil lawsuits for wrongful death, Kohli may be implicated in damages claims under tort principles, which would further complicate his professional and financial situation.

In the meanwhile, the focus of public discourse has shifted to responsibility on several levels. The leaders of the opposition have accused the state administration that is currently in power of being negligent in its administrative duties, while the Karnataka Cricket Association has admitted that there were mistakes made in the planning of crowd flow.

Chief Minister Siddaramaiah has distanced his government from the stampede and has placed the finger of blame at the local police and event organizers, saying that they are the ones who are bearing the brunt of the guilt.

As the inquiry continues, it is anticipated that Virat Kohli’s legal team will submit a comprehensive response. In this response, they will attempt to disprove any charges that are without foundation and will declare that his involvement was just ceremonial.

In the event that the police decide to designate him as an accused, anticipatory bail petitions may be submitted. There is a narrow line that the law-and-order apparatus must walk in order to ensure that people who have been wrongfully accused in a tragedy that has shocked India’s cricket-loving nation be protected by due process. Until then, the law-and-order apparatus must negotiate this tight line.