The Supreme Court of India, while setting aside the bail granted to Olympian wrestler Sushil Kumar in a 2021 murder case, has laid down a comprehensive summary of principles for a superior court to consider when deciding an appeal against a bail order. A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra held that the Delhi High Court’s order granting bail was erroneous for not considering key factors, and in its judgment, it distilled the settled law on the scope of appellate review in bail matters.
Principles for Adjudicating Bail Appeals
The Supreme Court, after reviewing several of its past judgments, including Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan and Y v. State of Rajasthan, summarized the following principles for an appellate court to apply when examining the correctness of an order granting bail:
- Distinction from Cancellation: An appeal against the grant of bail is on a different footing than an application for the cancellation of bail. An appeal examines the correctness of the original order, whereas a cancellation application typically deals with the accused’s misconduct after being released.
- No Merits Adjudication: The court hearing the appeal must not “venture into a threadbare analysis of the evidence adduced by prosecution.” The merits of the evidence are to be adjudicated at trial, not at the bail stage.
- Application of Mind: The order granting bail must reflect a clear application of mind and an assessment of the relevant factors for granting bail that have been established by the Supreme Court in previous decisions.
- Grounds for Interference: A superior court can entertain an appeal against a bail order on grounds of “perversity; illegality; inconsistency with law; relevant factors not been taken into consideration including gravity of the offence and impact of the crime.”
- Subsequent Conduct is Irrelevant for Appeal: The conduct of an accused after the grant of bail is not a consideration for an appeal against the grant of bail itself. Such grounds are to be raised in a separate application for cancellation of bail.
- Not a Retaliatory Measure: An appeal against a grant of bail must not be used as a “retaliatory measure” and must be confined only to the established legal grounds for interference.
Application in the Present Case
Applying these principles, the Supreme Court found that the Delhi High Court had “erroneously passed an order releasing the Accused on bail.” The bench concluded that the High Court had failed to consider several relevant factors which warranted interference.
The Court noted that the accused had absconded after the FIR was registered, leading to the issuance of non-bailable warrants and a cash reward for his arrest. “The High Court ought to have taken this relevant fact into its deliberation,” the judgment stated.
Further, the Supreme Court pointed to the gravity of the allegations, where the “national capital was made into a criminal playground to settle scores,” and the societal influence of the accused. The Court observed, “Undoubtedly, the Accused is a celebrated wrestler and an Olympian… It cannot be doubted that he carries societal impact. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that he would have no domineering influence over witnesses or delay the proceedings of trial.”
The Court also took note of the State’s submission that 28 out of 35 witnesses examined so far had turned hostile, a pattern that the Court said “underscores the possibility of interference into the trial by the Accused.”
Background and Final Order
The case involves the alleged abduction and murder of a wrestler, Sagar, at Chhatrasal Stadium in New Delhi in May 2021. Sushil Kumar is the main accused in the case.
Based on its analysis, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the complainant, Ashok Dhankad, set aside the High Court’s bail order, and directed Sushil Kumar to surrender within one week.
