High-Profile cases referenced as Allu Arjun fights stampede charges

Hyderabad: Allu Arjun’s panel of advocates referred cases against Shah Rukh Khan, Arnab Goswami and Bandi Sanjay during the arguments and urged the court to grant interim bail as many courts have granted bail post-arrest.

Senior counsel S. Niranjan Reddy, representing Allu Arjun in a case filed by Chikkadpally police of Hyderabad, cited the 2017 stampede case of Shah Rukh Khan.

The Gujarat High Court quashed a 2017 petition against Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan related to a stampede at Vadodara railway station during the promotion of his film ‘Raees’ that resulted in one death and several injuries.

Going into the case details, one person died and several others were injured in a stampede at Vadodara railway station during the promotion of Shah Rukh Khan’s film ‘Raees’ in 2017.

“The petitioner was promoting his movie at the railway station, after having obtained permission to do so from the authorities concerned. Neither could the acts of the petitioner be termed as being of extreme high degree of negligence or recklessness nor could the acts stated to be proximate or efficient cause for the alleged incident,” the Gujarat court said in an order cited by Niranjan Reddy.

The alleged incidents resulted from many causes, one being the petitioner’s act of throwing ‘smiley balls’ and ‘T-shirts’ in the crowd, it said.

As noted, out of thousands present in the Railway Station on the incident date, including police and railway staff, none of the persons who might have been injured on account of the incident or even witnessed the incident had complained about the same, it added.

After the 2017 stampede, Congress leader Jitendra Solanki filed a complaint against the actor. A local court in Vadodara summoned the film star to appear. Shah Rukh Khan moved the high court against the summons and to quash the complaint.

The court noted in its order that the petition was filed by a person with no direct connection to the incident.

“The court is also required to consider whether it would be fair and justifiable for ordinary citizens where the trial against the petitioner might be held if the impugned complaint is not quashed, who would suffer inconvenience from the petitioner attending the trial regarding a complaint filed by a person with no direct connection to the incident in question,” the court order said.