Supreme Court Overturns Olympian Wrestler Sushil Kumar's Bail in Murder Case Citing Gravity of Offence

In a significant ruling, while hearing the appeal filed by Ashok Dhankad the Supreme Court of India in case of Ashok Dhankad vs State Of NCT Of Delhi & Anr., has set aside the bail granted by the High Court of Delhi to Sushil Kumar, the Accused/Respondent and a celebrated wrestler and Olympian. The case involves the many grave charges including murder.

Following the bail granted by the High Court of Delhi on March 4, 2025, which had enlarged Sushil Kumar on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023., the appeal was filed in the Supreme Court. The initial FIR 218/2021 comprised of Sections 308, 325, 323, 341, 506, 188, 269, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and the Arms Act, 1959, including. However, a charge under Section 302 IPC was later added after one of the injured victims succumbed to his injuries.

The case of the prosecution is that out of personal enimity, the victim Sagar along with five others, were abducted by the Accused/Respondent and his associates and after the voilent attacked with lathis and sticks and even gunshorts were fire, as a resulte of which Sagar subsequently died from "cerebral damage as a result of blunt force/object impact".

Investigation revealed a blood-stained 'parna' from the Accused's vehicle, along with a loaded double barrel gun, ammunition, and wooden sticks from associates' vehicles and importantly, a video recording of the incident, allegedly depicting the Accused attacking the injured persons with deadly weapons, was recovered from a co-accused's mobile device and confirmed by FSL as untampered.

The Supreme Court further emphasized that while in constitutional democracy the personal liberty is sacrosanct, it cannot dilute the seriousness of heinous and grave offences or undermine public confidence in Justice System, and relying on its earlier judgment in case of 'Y' vs The State of Rajasthan, 2022 the Apex Court held that "an order granting bail can be tested on illegality, perversity, arbitrariness and being based on unjustified material."

The Supreme Court found that the High Court of Delhi errerd in granting the bail and has not adequately considering several crucial factors:

The Apex Court emphasized that while personal liberty, constitutional democracy, is sacrosanct, it cannot dilute the seriousness of heinous and grave offences or undermine public confidence in Justice System.

• Given the grievous nature of the crime and the seriousness of the allegations, which led to the death of the complainant's son from injuries, falls under the grave nature.

• The accused's conduct during the investigation was looked inot, specifically that he absconded and evaded arrest, leading to the issuance of non-bailable warrants and a cash reward for his capture, afte which he was finally arrested.

• The possibility of the accused influencing the trial, given his status as a celebrated Olympian and national figure with significant societal impact, the Apex Court while citing Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar 2023 observed that as a "visible pattern" of prosecution witnesses turning hostile (28 out of 35 examined) was observed, especially after the Accused was granted temporary bail on five prior occasions, further underscoring the "possibility of interference into the trial by the Accused".

The Apex Court observed that setting aside a bail order is distinct from cancellation of bail; "Setting Aside" is when scrutinizing whether bail was illegal, perverse, unjustified, or arbitrary, or failed to consider relevant factors, and "Cancellation of Bail" is pertaining to the accused's subsequent conduct such as misuse of liberty or supervening circumstances.

The Apex Court held that "Bail" is a discretionary judicial remedy requiring a "delicate and context-sensitive balancing of competing legal and societal interests," upholding personal liberty while remaining mindful of the gravity of the offence and public confidence.

Further, the SC observed that an order granting bail must reflect application of mind and assessment of relevant factors, such as the nature of accusations, gravity of the offence, and likelihood of tampering with witnesses or obstructing proceedings.

The Supreme Court concluded that these factors, which were either not considered or not given due weight by the High Court, warranted setting aside the bail order. The accused was directed to surrender within one week, with the option to apply for bail afresh if circumstances change, however, the Apex Court made it clear that its observations were solely for the purpose of examining the bail order and not on the merits of the main trial.

Coram: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra.