Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail for Olympian Sushil Kumar, Citing Flight Risk and Witness Tampering.
13-August-2025
Criminal Appeals & Suspension of Sentence >> Criminal Law
In a significant legal ruling of Ashok Dhankad v/s State of NCT of Delhi & Another, the Supreme Court of India has overturned a High Court decision that granted regular bail to celebrated Olympian and wrestler, Sushil Kumar. The verdict, delivered on March 4, 2025, in response to an appeal from the complainant, underscores the delicate balance courts must strike between an accused's personal liberty and the integrity of the judicial process.
The Case Background:
The case stems from a brutal incident on the night of May 4-5, 2021. According to the police chargesheet, Sushil Kumar and his associates allegedly abducted several individuals, including Sagar, who later succumbed to his injuries. The victims were taken to Chhatrasal Stadium in New Delhi, where they were reportedly attacked with sticks and lathis. A bloodstained cloth, wooden sticks, and a loaded firearm were recovered from the scene. A video of the alleged assault was also found on a co-accused's phone.
Following the incident, Kumar went into hiding, prompting Delhi Police to issue non-bailable warrants and a cash reward for information on his whereabouts. He was finally arrested on May 23, 2021. Charges were filed under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including murder (Section 302), and the Arms Act. While all 21 co-accused remain in custody, the Delhi High Court had granted Kumar regular bail, a decision that the Supreme Court was called upon to review.
Distinguishing Bail Appeals from Cancellation:
The Supreme Court, at the outset, clarified a crucial legal distinction: an appeal against an order granting bail is not the same as an application for bail cancellation. The former scrutinizes the correctness of the High Court's decision itself, whereas the latter typically hinges on the accused's conduct after being released on bail. The court cited previous judgments, including Y v. State of Rajasthan, to emphasize that a superior court can set aside a bail order if it is found to be "illegal, perverse, unjustified, or arbitrary" or if it is based on irrelevant considerations.
The Supreme Court's Rationale:
The Supreme Court found that the High Court's decision to grant bail was flawed, as it failed to adequately consider several critical factors.
Conduct during Investigation: The court highlighted that Kumar had absconded and evaded arrest for a significant period after the FIR was registered. Despite this being a "relevant fact," it was not taken into account by the High Court.
Grievous Nature of the Crime: The allegations are of an "extremely serious" and "shocking" nature, involving abduction, assault with deadly weapons, and ultimately, a death. The court observed that the incident turned the national capital into a "criminal playground."
Influence on Witnesses: The court noted Kumar's high profile as a "celebrated wrestler and an Olympian." It stated that due to his societal impact, he could exert a "domineering influence over witnesses." This concern was substantiated by the prosecution's submission that 28 of the 35 witnesses examined so far have turned hostile, a pattern observed during the temporary bails previously granted to the accused. While the court did not conclusively link this to the accused, it acknowledged that the pattern underscored the "possibility of interference" in the trial.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that while the length of the accused's custody and the recording of witness testimonies are relevant considerations, the High Court "erred" by overlooking the gravity of the crime, the
accused's conduct during the investigation, and the possibility of witness intimidation.
As a result, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's bail order and instructed Sushil Kumar to surrender before the concerned court within one week. The court's judgment makes it clear that while personal liberty is a constitutional right, it cannot be invoked in a way that undermines the seriousness of a heinous crime or jeopardizes the fairness of the judicial process.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973