Supreme Court: In a criminal appeal filed against the order passed by Delhi High Court, wherein, the High Court granted bail to Olympian Wrestler Sushil Kumar’s (accused) in the Sagar Dhankhar murder case, the division bench of Sanjay Karol* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. viewed that the High Court had erroneously passed an order releasing the accused on bail. Thus, the Court set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court and directed the accused to surrender before the court concerned within one week.
The Court stated that the grant of bail constituted a discretionary judicial remedy, which necessitated a delicate and context-sensitive balancing of competing legal and societal interests. On one hand, there was the imperative to uphold the personal liberty of the accused, an entrenched constitutional value reinforced by the presumption of innocence, a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence. On the other hand, the court had to remain equally mindful of the gravity of the alleged offence, the broader societal implications of the accused’s release, and the need to preserve the integrity and fairness of the investigative and trial processes. While liberty was sacrosanct, particularly in a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law, it could not be construed in a manner that diluted the seriousness of heinous or grave offences or undermined public confidence in the administration of justice. Therefore, the exercise of judicial discretion in bail matters had to be informed by a calibrated assessment of the nature and seriousness of the charge, the strength of the prima facie case, the likelihood of the accused fleeing justice or tampering with evidence or witnesses, and the overarching interest of ensuring that the trial proceeded without obstruction or prejudice.
At the outset, the Court clarified that it was important to distinguish between two distinct concepts: setting aside an order granting bail and the cancellation of bail. While the former involved examining the correctness of the original order, the latter focused on the conduct of the accused after the bail had been granted.
Examining the judicial pronouncements that had reiterated this position time and again, the Court noted that the principles emerging from them:
-
An appeal against the grant of bail could not be considered on the same footing as an application for the cancellation of bail;
-
The court concerned must not engage in a threadbare analysis of the evidence presented by the prosecution, as the merits of such evidence should not be adjudicated at the bail stage;
-
An order granting bail must reflect the application of mind and an assessment of the relevant factors for granting bail.
-
An appeal against the grant of bail may be entertained by a superior court on grounds such as perversity, illegality, inconsistency with law, or failure to consider relevant factors, including the gravity of the offence and the impact of the crime;
-
However, the court may not consider the conduct of the accused subsequent to the grant of bail while hearing an appeal against such grant. Such grounds must be addressed in an application for cancellation of bail; and
-
An appeal against the grant of bail must not be used as a retaliatory measure, and it must be confined only to the grounds discussed above.
Keeping in view the above expositions of law, the Court viewed that the High Court had erroneously passed an order releasing the accused on bail. While considerations such as the period of custody and the testimonies of key prosecution witnesses being recorded were relevant, the court had erred by, inter alia, failing to consider the grievous nature of the crime, the possibility of the accused influencing the trial, and the conduct of the accused during the investigation.
The Court highlighted that it was a matter of record that, after the registration of the subject FIR against the accused, he had remained absconding and evaded arrest. This had led to the passing of the order by the Metropolitan Magistrate, whereby non-bailable warrants had been issued against him and his associates to secure their custody. Despite such warrants being issued, the whereabouts of the accused remained unknown. Consequently, on 18-05-2021, the Delhi Police had declared a cash reward for information about the accused, who was evading custody and remained absconding. Despite a submission to this effect before the High Court, the above facts had not been considered in the order releasing him on bail. The High Court ought to have taken these relevant facts into its deliberation while adjudicating the entitlement of the accused to regular bail.
The Court also emphasised the seriousness of the allegations against the accused. According to the allegations in the FIR, the national capital had been turned into a criminal playground to settle scores, with no regard for the law. The accused persons had allegedly abducted certain individuals, violently attacked them with dangerous weapons, and caused grievous injuries. The injuries were of such nature that they had resulted in the unfortunate death of the complainant’s son.
The Court stated that from the contents of the case, it was also evident that a loaded firearm had been recovered from the vehicle of the accused persons. Other weapons, stained with blood, had also been recovered from the crime scene. Moreover, it could not be disputed that a recording of the alleged incident had been found on the phones of one of the co-accused persons. While the veracity of this evidence was a matter for trial, there could be no doubt that these allegations were shocking and serious in nature.
Furthermore, the Court said that it could not overlook the influence an accused might wield in society while considering the grant of bail, as had been expounded by the court in Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar, (2023) 13 SCC 549. The accused was a celebrated wrestler and an Olympian who had represented the nation at the international level, which undeniably gave him societal impact. In such circumstances, it could not be said that he would have no domineering influence over witnesses or delay the proceedings of the trial. The Court also noted that allegations of pressurizing witnesses had been made before the order granting bail was passed. Certain witnesses had, in writing, lodged complaints expressing fear for their lives at the behest of the accused.
Regarding this aspect, the Court noted that the state had submitted that whenever the accused had been granted temporary bail a visible pattern had emerged. In each instance, the prosecution witnesses, for whatever reason, be it influence or threat, had turned hostile upon examination. However, at that stage, the Court refrained from affirming a final judgment on this matter. Nonetheless, the pattern underscored the possibility of the accused interfering with the trial. Notably, out of 35 witnesses examined, 28 had turned hostile.
The cumulative result of the above discussion was that the impugned order could not be sustained. The Court clarified that the above observations were solely for the purpose of examining the order granting bail and should not be construed as remarks on the merits of the main matter before the Trial Court.
In light of the above, the Court set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court and directed the accused to surrender before the court concerned within one week. It was also 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.
[Ashok Dhankad v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1690, decided on 13-08-2025]
Judgment Authored by: Justice Sanjay Karol
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Siddharth Mridul, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ishan Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Joginder Tuli, Adv. Mr. Joshini Tuli, Adv. Mrs. Gargi Khanna, AOR Ms. Minnat Ullah, Adv. Mr. Deepak Chhikara, Adv. Ms. Taniya Qureshi, Adv. Mr. Amarjeet Vedi, Adv. Ms. Madhurima Mridul, Adv. Mr. Shrey, Adv. Mr. Sahil Batra, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Amit Sharma-b, Adv. Mr. Prakash Gautam, Adv. Mr. Shubhendu Anand, Adv. Mr. Alabhya Damija, Adv. Ms. Mahima Pandey, Adv. Mr. Amrit Rathi, Adv. Mr. Shreevardhan Dhoot, Adv. Mr. Ravi Sharma, AOR
