Supreme Court Cancels Bail Of Olympian Wrestler Sushil Kumar In Chhatrasal Stadium Murder Case | Says Liberty Cannot Dilute Gravity Of Heinous Crimes And Orders Surrender In A Week
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra has set aside a bail order issued by the High Court of Delhi and directed the accused to surrender before the concerned court within one week. The court held that the order releasing the accused on bail failed to consider relevant factors, including the seriousness of the allegations, the accused's conduct during the investigation, and the potential influence on witnesses. The Bench stated that the impugned order could not be sustained and clarified that the accused could apply afresh for bail with a change in circumstances, which would then be considered on its own merits.
The matter involved an appeal filed by the complainant against the judgment and order dated 4 March 2025 of the High Court of Delhi, which had granted regular bail to the accused under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The bail pertained to an FIR registered under Sections 308, 325, 323, 341, 506, 188, 269, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with Sections 25, 54, and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959.
The prosecution case, as per the charge sheet, was that on the intervening night of 4 and 5 May 2021, the accused and associates abducted multiple individuals from two locations in New Delhi and took them to Chhatrasal Stadium. There, they allegedly attacked the victims with wooden lathis and sticks, with the intention to kill, and also fired gunshots. A PCR call was made reporting the gunfire.
ASI Jitender Singh conducted the investigation and found five vehicles at the scene. One vehicle registered to the accused contained a blood-stained 'parna', while another contained a loaded double-barrel gun with live cartridges. Two wooden sticks were also recovered. Blood samples were collected from various spots. The injured were taken to BJRM Hospital, where one victim, Mr. Sagar, died due to "cerebral damage as a result of blunt force/object impact."
A mobile device recovered from a co-accused contained an unedited video allegedly showing the accused attacking the victims. The accused was absconding after the FIR, leading to non-bailable warrants issued on 15 May 2021 and a cash reward announced on 18 May 2021. He was arrested on 23 May 2021.
Charges under Sections 302, 307, 308, 364, 365, 452, 323, and 342 of IPC and Sections 25(1)(B) and 27(1) of the Arms Act were filed. Of 189 witnesses, 35 had been examined, and 21 co-accused remained in custody.
The complainant argued before the Supreme Court that the High Court failed to consider the accused's conduct, influence, and the seriousness of the allegations. The State supported this view and alleged witness intimidation. The accused's counsel argued that bail was rightly granted, citing non-misuse of liberty during previous temporary bails.
The Supreme Court noted the distinction between setting aside bail and cancelling bail, citing previous decisions. It reiterated that setting aside bail focuses on the correctness of the original order, not post-bail conduct.
The Bench recorded: "The grant of bail constitutes a discretionary judicial remedy that necessitates a delicate and context-sensitive balancing of competing legal and societal interests." The court stated that while personal liberty is a constitutional value, it cannot undermine the seriousness of grave offences or public confidence in justice.
Referring to Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, the court stated: "Personal liberty cannot be taken away except in accordance with the procedure established by law... But even persons accused of non-bailable offences are entitled to bail if the court... is satisfied for reasons to be recorded..."
On the law, the court quoted from Y v. State of Rajasthan: "The first situation requires the Court to analyse whether the order granting bail was illegal, perverse, unjustified or arbitrary."
The Bench outlined principles: "An order granting bail must reflect application of mind and assessment of the relevant factors... An appeal against grant of bail may be entertained by a superior Court on grounds such as perversity; illegality; inconsistency with law; relevant factors not been taken into consideration including gravity of the offence and impact of the crime."
In this case, the court observed that the High Court erred by not considering the accused's absconding after the FIR, the issuance of warrants, and the announcement of a cash reward for information. "The High Court ought to have taken this relevant fact into its deliberation."
The court further recorded: "The national capital was made into a criminal playground to settle scores, with no regard for the law of the land... The injuries were of such nature that they resulted in the unfortunate death of the complainant’s son."
The Bench noted the recovery of a loaded firearm, blood-stained weapons, and video evidence. It also observed the accused's influence as an Olympian and the potential to affect witnesses, citing complaints lodged by witnesses fearing threats. The court remarked on a visible pattern where witnesses turned hostile during periods when the accused was granted temporary bail, though it refrained from making definitive findings on this point.
The court held: "The cumulative result of the above discussion is that the impugned order cannot be sustained." It directed that the order of the High Court granting bail be set aside.
The Bench ordered: "Let the Accused/Respondent No. 2 surrender before the concerned Court within one week." It further stated: "It shall be open for the accused to apply afresh for bail, with a change in circumstances, before the appropriate Court, to be decided on its own merits." The court clarified that its observations were solely for the purpose of examining the bail order and should not affect the merits of the main trial.
Case Title: Ashok Dhankad v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 974
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 3495 of 2025 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 5370 of 2025)
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
