As per the police, Allu Arjun did not obtain prior permission before going to the theatre to watch the premiere show, leading to the incident. (PTI Photo)
Amit Gupta
Dec 30, 2024 19:45 IST First published on: Dec 30, 2024 at 19:40 IST
On December 4, 2024, a stampede at Sandhya Theatre, Hyderabad, during a screening of the movie, Pushpa 2: The Rule, resulted in the death of a woman and the hospitalisation of her son. The stampede is being blamed on the presence of Telugu film superstar, Allu Arjun.
The stampede and death of an innocent are certainly condemnable. However, the registration of an FIR against the actor, his dramatic arrest and the media spectacle are nothing but a theatre of the absurd. The whole episode shows just how easily our criminal laws can be abused to ensure that the legal process itself amounts to punishment.
On December 5, the police registered the FIR under Sections 105 (Culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and 118 (1) read with Section 3 (5) (voluntarily causing hurt) of the BNS, against Allu Arjun, his security team and the management of the theatre. The theatre owner, general manager and security manager were arrested on December 8. Allu Arjun was arrested on the morning of December 13.
As per the police, Allu Arjun did not obtain prior permission before going to the theatre to watch the premiere show, leading to the incident. It has been alleged that there was no intimation to police by the theatre management or the actor’s team about what time he would visit, and that there were no provisions regarding security to manage the crowd.
While hearing the writ petition filed by Allu Arjun for quashing of the FIR on December 13, the Telangana High Court noted that a letter was addressed to ACP, Chikkadpally Police Station on December 2, seeking permission to provide security measures. The film production unit also addressed a letter dated December 4. The High Court refused to stay the investigation, but granted interim bail to the actor.
The above sequence of events raises questions regarding three crucial points: One, the registration of FIR; two, the necessity of arrest and, three, the investigation process.
As per the allegations in the FIR, the actor is guilty of an offence just short of murder. The maximum punishment is life sentence. However, even if the allegations are accepted on face value, one fails to understand how they can be sustained. It is far-fetched to say that the actor intended to cause death. It would be equally far-fetched to say that he had “knowledge that he is likely…to cause death” by his presence at the theatre. Interestingly, the case is not that he arrived at the venue after the stampede had taken place. If that were the situation, knowledge could be attributed to Allu Arjun. It is also not the case that there was any overt action on his part to incite the crowd to break the security barriers. If the allegations were to be sustained, we need to think about how much of the onus is being put on a known personality. In our nation, such a burden of duty is difficult to achieve by any celebrity. Anytime one steps out, it would become their responsibility to ensure that people do not go into a frenzy and nothing untoward happens.
Secondly, there was no justification for the arrest, except to give the impression that the police are not going soft on a superstar. The principle that jail is the exception, and bail is the rule is ignored more than it is followed. The courts have generally held that a person may be arrested if the investigation cannot proceed without his arrest, if he is a flight risk, or if there are chances of tampering with the evidence or intimidating the witnesses. None of the situations arose in the present case. As per media visuals, the actor was arrested while having breakfast at home.
most read
Thirdly, even if a person is able to get bail, the investigation process often amounts to punishment. The law assumes free and fair investigation. The courts are not easily persuaded to stay an investigation, as in this case. Where an accused secures bail, the investigator may call them repeatedly (maybe even unnecessarily) for long durations. Recently, after a rebuke from the court, the ED issued a circular directing its officers not to call an accused for investigation during “unearthly” hours and not to keep them waiting. It has been reported that Allu Arjun was called for questioning for three hours during which 20 questions were asked. He is likely to be questioned again. Thus, securing interim bail may not end the actor’s harassment.
Several reasons are being attributed to the FIR and the arrest. It is a sad state of affairs when the time and resources of police are being wasted in making an example out of Allu Arjun, at the cost of addressing much more serious issues.
The writer was a former Additional Public Prosecutor in the Delhi High Court
Why should you buy our Subscription?
You want to be the smartest in the room.
You want access to our award-winning journalism.
You don’t want to be misled and misinformed.
Choose your subscription package
