Back
Denies Bail to Olympian Wrestler Sushil Kumar in Sagar Dhankar Murder Case
A two-time Olympic medalist's bid for freedom hits a wall as the refuses to overturn the 's earlier intervention.
In a significant setback for celebrated wrestler Sushil Kumar, the dismissed his regular on , in connection with the murder of former junior national wrestling champion Sagar Dhankhad. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav ruled that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a genuine that would justify departing from the 's previous .
A Night of Violence at Chhatrasal Stadium
The case stems from a brutal incident on the intervening night of , when police received a PCR call reporting gunfire inside Delhi's Chhatrasal Stadium. Investigation revealed that several individuals—Jai Bhagwan @ Sonu, Sagar Dhankhad, Ravinder @ Bhinda, Bhagat @ Bhagtu, and Amit @ Khagad—had been abducted from Shalimar Bagh and Model Town and brought to the stadium's parking area, where they were mercilessly assaulted with lathis, dandas, hockey sticks, and firearms.
Sagar Dhankhad succumbed to his injuries the same day during treatment, leading to the addition of . The and eventually named 23 accused persons under multiple provisions, including .
The 's Shadow Looms Large
This was not Sushil Kumar's first attempt at securing bail. In , a coordinate bench of the granted him , finding that eyewitnesses had and that trial completion seemed distant. However, the set aside that order on , in , directing him to surrender.
The
had flagged critical concerns: Kumar's conduct in evading arrest and remaining
, the gravity of the allegations, recovery of a loaded firearm, forensically untampered video evidence, and—most troublingly—a discernible pattern where witnesses
each time he was granted
. The
expressly noted that this pattern
"underscores the possibility of
by the Accused."
Kumar surrendered on , and subsequently moved a fresh before the , which was dismissed on .
Petitioner's Arguments: "The Threat is Gone"
Senior counsel for Kumar argued that the very apprehension which weighed with the —that material public witnesses could be influenced—no longer survives. All injured and public witnesses from PW-1 to PW-42 have been examined and, according to the defence, have without exception declined to support the prosecution's version.
Particular emphasis was placed on the deposition of Ashok Dhankad, the deceased's father and original complainant, who allegedly failed to support the prosecution case. The defence contended this constituted precisely the "" contemplated by the 's reserved liberty, read alongside Kumar's incarceration exceeding five years and the fact that only formal and official witnesses remain among the 222 cited.
State's Counter: No Material Alteration
The State and the deceased's father's counsel opposed the application, disputing the characterisation of Ashok Dhankad's testimony as unsupportive. They argued that his testimony, read as a whole, in fact corroborates the prosecution case—a determination that must await final appreciation by the .
Crucially, the State maintained that the 's concerns regarding Kumar's pre-arrest conduct, the gravity of the offence, corroborative forensic and video material, and his continuing societal influence remain wholly unaltered.
A Report That Changed Little
Pursuant to the High Court's direction, the submitted a on . It revealed that the trial involves 23 accused persons, with by each accused individually proving to be the principal cause of delay. As of that date, only 48 of 222 cited witnesses had been examined.
The Legal Test for
Justice Kaurav anchored his reasoning in , which holds that a court entertaining a subsequent must examine the grounds on which earlier bail was rejected or cancelled and record what persuade it to take a different view. The absence of such renders a subsequent grant unsustainable, being tantamount to an indirect overruling of a superior court's order.
Quoting
, the Court acknowledged that a refusal of bail does not bar a fresh application on a later occasion with more materials and further developments.
"An
is not a conclusive adjudication, and updated reconsideration is not overturning an earlier negation,"
the judgment observed.
"The Door the Closed"
Applying this test, the Court found that the petitioner's projected fell short. The 's foundation was not merely that particular witnesses remained unexamined; it rested on the broader finding that Kumar, a person of considerable societal standing, had seen witnesses turn hostile upon deposition each time he was granted —a pattern expressly held to underscore .
"Whether the deposition of Ashok Dhankad does or does not support the prosecution is, moreover, a matter of
that must await the outcome by the
,"
the judgment stated.
"It cannot be treated as a
sufficient to unlock the door that the
closed."
Key Observations
The Court quoted from its analysis of :
"While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of ..."
Drawing on
, the Court noted that
"more heinous is a crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail."
The Court also acknowledged the principle from
that
—but held that this operates within, not in derogation of, the settled factors, particularly where the offence involves
"a premeditated and gruesome assault resulting in death, corroborated by recovery of a firearm, forensically untampered video evidence, and a large body of material yet to be tested at trial."
The Verdict
Justice Kaurav concluded that the specific concerns articulated by the
—Kumar's conduct prior to arrest, the gravity of the offence, and above all,
"his capacity to influence the outcome of the trial given his standing"
—have not been shown to have altered in any material particular.
The application was dismissed, with the Court clarifying that its observations are confined to the present application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The will ultimately determine the matter based on the evidence led before it.
Sushil Kumar remains in custody as the trial continues, with the outcome of this high-profile case now resting on the evaluation of evidence by the —and, perhaps, on whether any genuinely new circumstances emerge in the months ahead.
