Why Sushil Kumar is Back in Jail: Supreme Court's Crucial Reasoning

The Supreme Court, on August 13, 2025, set aside the Delhi High Court’s order granting bail to Olympian wrestler Sushil Kumar in a 2021 murder case, holding that the High Court failed to consider the grave nature of the offence, the possibility of the accused influencing the trial, and his conduct during the investigation.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra observed that while personal liberty is sacrosanct in a constitutional democracy, it cannot be construed to dilute the seriousness of heinous crimes or undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

“The exercise of judicial discretion in bail matters must 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 proceeds without obstruction or prejudice,” the court said.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Mridul, for the complainant, contended that the High Court failed to consider the accused’s conduct, societal influence, and the seriousness of the allegations.

ASG Vikramjit Banerjee, for the State, supported the complainant and alleged attempts by the accused to influence witnesses.

Senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, for Sushil Kumar, defended the High Court’s order, submitting that the accused had never misused the liberty of temporary bail and that the evidence on record justified bail.

The bench reiterated that setting aside an order granting bail is distinct from cancelling bail; the former examines the correctness of the order itself, while the latter addresses post-bail conduct. Citing Jayaben v. Tejas Kanubhai Zala (2022), Y v. State of Rajasthan (2022), Meena Devi v. State of U.P. (2022), and State of Rajasthan v. Indraj Singh (2025), the court outlined the parameters for interference, including perversity or illegality in the order, non-consideration of relevant factors like gravity of the offence and societal impact, avoidance of detailed merits assessment at the bail stage, and ensuring appeals against bail are not used vindictively.

The Supreme Court held that although the High Court noted factors like the period of custody and examination of key witnesses, it ignored critical aspects, such as the heinous nature of the crime, the accused’s abscondence, and the potential to influence trial proceedings.

The judgment recorded that certain witnesses had lodged written complaints fearing threats from the accused, and that whenever Sushil Kumar was granted temporary bail on five occasions between November 2022 and August 2023, a pattern emerged where prosecution witnesses subsequently turned hostile, 28 out of 35 examined so far.

Court emphasised the accused’s stature as a celebrated Olympian, observing that such societal influence could not be disregarded in assessing the risk of witness intimidation or trial delay.

“As per the allegations in the FIR, the national capital was made into a criminal playground to settle scores, with no regard for the law of the land… These allegations are shocking and serious in nature,” the bench remarked.

Court set aside the High Court’s bail order, directed Sushil Kumar to surrender within a week, and clarified that he may apply afresh for bail upon a change in circumstances, to be decided on merits by the appropriate court.

An appeal was filed before the top court by complainant Ashok Dhankad against the Delhi High Court’s March 4, 2025, order granting regular bail to Sushil Kumar in FIR No. 218/2021 registered under multiple provisions of the IPC and the Arms Act.

The FIR pertained to the killing of Dhankad’s son, Sagar, and injuries to others during a violent incident at Chhatrasal Stadium in May 2021.

As per the prosecution, Sushil Kumar and his associates abducted several individuals from Shalimar Bagh and Model Town, assaulted them with wooden lathis and sticks, and even fired gunshots. Sagar succumbed to head injuries described in the post-mortem as “cerebral damage as a result of blunt force/object impact".

A video recording of the incident recovered from a co-accused’s phone was found untampered by forensic examination.

Sushil Kumar allegedly absconded after the FIR, prompting the issuance of non-bailable warrants and a cash reward for information leading to his arrest.

He was taken into custody on May 23, 2021.

Case Title: Ashok Dhankad v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Date of Judgment: August 13, 2025

Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra