BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court on Thursday permitted the city police to investigate the crime registered against singer Sonu Nigam for his alleged statement linking a request to sing a Kannada song with the Pahalgam terror attack, a remark that triggered widespread outrage and upset people in Karnataka.
At the same time, the court permitted accused Sonu Nigam to appear through video conferencing for investigation to record his statement if so required or if the investigation officer (IO) wants to record his statement physically, he (Sonu Nigam) should bear the expenses of the IO.
However, the court restrained the city police from filing a final report till the next date of hearing.
“Till next date of hearing, the filing of final report is stayed”, said a vacation bench of Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar while also recording the undertaking given by the state government that they will not take any coercive steps against Sonu Nigam if he cooperates with the investigation.
The interim order was passed after hearing the petition filed by Sonu Nigam questioning the legality of the First Information Report registered by one Dharma Raj Ananthaiah with the Avalahalli police station in the city on May 2.
When the matter was taken up for hearing, the counsel appearing for the petitioner-Sonu Nigam argued that a case of criminal intimidation and public mischief has been registered against the singer based on a complaint for his alleged statement in question at music concert in the city when one of the students demanded him to sing a Kannada song.
The averments made in the complaint do not attract the offences alleged against the petitioner. The complaint was filed only to get publicity, he alleged. Then the judge asked him whether the complainant was on the spot when the incident happened.
Interfering at this stage, Additional State Public Prosecutor B N Jagadeesha submitted that in fact the event was on live, widely reported and videos of the alleged statements have been circulated. It is not that he cannot compare demanding a song to the Phahalgam incident.
In a similar incident that happened in Madhya Pradesh (Minister Vijay Shah’s comment against Colonel Sofia Qureshi), the high court took suomotu cognisance and even the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the same today, he argued while pointing out that Sonu Nigam is not cooperating with the investigation. Then the court pointed out that a public apology was made by Sonu Nigam.
However, Jagadeesha submitted that initially accused Sonu Nigam defended his statement, but at a later point in time, after the Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce took a decision to ban him, he apologised. We have issued a notice to him through e-mail and by post on May 5, and we have to record his statement, considering his intention of making a statement. But he did not respond, and did not even whisper the same in his petition challenging the crime. Let him cooperate, whether he intended to or not. This kind of person who does not respect the law does not benefit from the petition filed under Section 482 of CrPc for quashing the crime. Let him cooperate with the probe, we will not take coercive action, he told the court.
When the counsel for the petitioner requests the court to exempt the petitioner from personal appearance for probe, considering that as he is celebrity which may lead to unnecessary issues, Jagadeesha objected to the same by making a submission that it is the responsibility of the state to protect the petitioner and he has to appear in person since they have to conduct spot mahazar.
Then the court suggests recording the statement through video conference or an audio recording of the statement. In reply, Jagadeesha submitted that this is where the problem lies and should not give too much of a premium to the petitioner.
Therefore, the court then said that if otherwise, the city police have to go to his place and record his statement. Jagadeesha submitted that he may not be in a position to make a statement on this right now.