In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside the order of the Delhi High Court which had granted interim bail to two-time Olympic medallist Sushil Kumar in connection with the 2021 murder of junior national wrestling champion Sagar Dhankhar. The Court directed Kumar to surrender within a week.
The order was passed by the apex court while hearing a plea filed by the father of the deceased wrestler, challenging the relief granted to Kumar by the Delhi High Court.
Background of the Case
The case pertains to an incident that transpired on the intervening night of May 4 and 5, 2021, at Delhi’s Chhatrasal Stadium. It is alleged that Sushil Kumar and several of his associates abducted Sagar Dhankhar and his friends, brought them to the stadium, and brutally assaulted them with sticks, hockey sticks, and other weapons over a property dispute. Sagar Dhankhar succumbed to his injuries, while two of his friends were grievously wounded.
Following the incident, Sushil Kumar was arrested on May 23, 2021, and has been in judicial custody since. In October 2022, a Delhi trial court framed charges against Kumar and 17 others under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, including murder (§302), attempt to murder (§307), rioting (§147, §148, §149), unlawful assembly, criminal conspiracy (§120B), kidnapping (§365), and robbery (§395).
The Delhi High Court had earlier granted Kumar interim bail on humanitarian grounds for his wife’s surgery. This order was subsequently challenged before the Supreme Court by the victim’s family.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel representing Sagar Dhankhar’s father argued that the High Court erred in granting bail to the accused. It was submitted that the allegations against Sushil Kumar are of a very serious and grave nature. The counsel contended that Kumar is an influential person who could potentially tamper with evidence and intimidate witnesses, thereby jeopardizing the trial. The plea highlighted the brutal nature of the crime and argued that granting bail in such a heinous offence would send a wrong message to society.
On the other hand, the counsel for Sushil Kumar defended the High Court’s order, submitting that the bail was granted for a limited period purely on humanitarian grounds. It was argued that Kumar’s wife required medical surgery and his presence was necessary.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Supreme Court, after hearing the arguments from both sides, found merit in the plea seeking cancellation of bail. The bench observed that the nature and gravity of the offence are primary considerations while deciding on bail applications.
The Court took serious note of the allegations against Kumar, which include being the alleged principal conspirator in a murder case. It noted that the High Court, while granting relief, did not adequately weigh the seriousness of the charges and the potential threat to the fairness of the trial. The bench found that the considerations for granting bail in a case involving such grave offences must be more stringent.
Observing that the allegations levelled against the respondent-accused are serious, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court’s order granting interim bail was not sustainable.
Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order of the Delhi High Court. It directed Sushil Kumar to surrender before the relevant prison authorities within one week from the date of the order.
