Explained: How Virat Kohli’s name got linked to the Bengaluru stampede incident?

Virat Kohli was drawn into the Bengaluru stampede case after a complaint was filed about his possible participation, Bengaluru police disclosed. Although the RCB star did not file a First Information Report against him, activist HM Venkatesh filed a complaint against him at the Cubbon Park Police Station.

According to Venkatesh, Virat Kohli said the IPL has tainted cricket and encouraged gambling through the league.

According to the police, Venkatesh thought Virat Kohli encouraged people to congregate at the M Chinnaswamy Stadium, which is what caused the disaster. The activist asked the police to report the RCB opener in a formal complaint.

“The Indian Premier League is not a sport; rather, it is a form of gambling that has corrupted cricket. The most well-known of those who engaged in this type of gaming, encouraged people to congregate in one location, and brought about this disaster was Virat Kohli of the Bangalore RCB squad. According to the Hindustan Times, Venkatesh stated in his complaint, “Therefore, we kindly ask that you indict Virat Kohli and his teammates in the FIR of this tragedy and take action.”

Important details on the stampede event in Bengaluru

The complaint makes it clear that Venkatesh’s complaint was unrelated to the stampede episode in Bengaluru. Nonetheless, Cubbon Park Station police have promised that they are pursuing a case similar to the current stampede inquiry.

Four members of the RCB management have been taken into custody thus far. Along with three other members of the DNA Agency, which coordinated the event, Nikhil Sosale, a vital member of the RCB’s social media team, was taken into custody. To make sure they are held in judicial custody for 14 days, the Cubbon Park police and the Central Crime Branch (CCB) worked together.

However, the Karnataka High Court has granted KSCA authorities temporary respite, removing them from the case’s FIR. In the Karnataka High Court, Sosale has contested his arrest, arguing that it was undertaken without sufficient investigation or proof.