Introduction:
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court granted regular bail to renowned wrestler Sushil Kumar in the case related to the murder of 27-year-old former junior national wrestling champion Sagar Dhankar. The case, which dates back to May 2021, involved allegations that Sushil Kumar and several others abducted and assaulted Sagar Dhankar and his friends at the Chhatrasal Stadium, leading to the victim’s death. Kumar had been lodged in Tihar Jail since his arrest in May 2021. Previously, he had been granted interim bail for a week for knee surgery. The charges against him and 17 co-accused were framed in October 2022. Justice Sanjeev Narula, while granting bail, directed Kumar to furnish a bail bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties of the same amount. The court’s decision comes after prolonged legal proceedings and intense scrutiny of the allegations, with the trial court earlier finding a prima facie case for murder. The prosecution alleged that the accused tortured the victims for a prolonged time after locking the stadium’s main gate, ensuring that no help could reach them. The case has drawn significant media attention due to Kumar’s stature as a celebrated athlete and the gravity of the charges against him.
Arguments of Both Sides:
The prosecution vehemently opposed Sushil Kumar’s bail plea, citing the brutal nature of the crime and the gravity of the charges against him. It was argued that Kumar, along with his associates, played a direct role in the abduction and fatal assault of Sagar Dhankar. The prosecution emphasized that multiple eyewitness testimonies and forensic evidence pointed to Kumar’s involvement. According to the police, Kumar and the other accused used weapons like dandas, baseball bats, and hockey sticks to attack the victims. The prosecution further highlighted that the crime scene—the Chhatrasal Stadium—was locked from the inside, ensuring no outside intervention. It was also argued that granting bail to Kumar could result in witness intimidation and tampering with evidence, given his influence and connections in the wrestling community. The prosecution stressed that the case was not merely about a physical altercation but a premeditated act of violence that led to the victim’s death.
On the other hand, Sushil Kumar’s legal team contended that he was falsely implicated in the case and that the charges were exaggerated. His counsel argued that there was no direct evidence to prove that Kumar had the intent to commit murder. They maintained that the incident was an unfortunate altercation rather than a planned killing. The defense also pointed out inconsistencies in witness statements and claimed that the police had built a case based on conjecture rather than solid proof. Additionally, Kumar’s legal team emphasized his long-standing reputation as an athlete and his contributions to Indian wrestling, arguing that he had no prior criminal record and was not a flight risk. They also submitted that Kumar had already spent a significant period in jail and that prolonged incarceration without conviction would amount to a violation of his fundamental rights. The defense further argued that Kumar required continuous medical attention due to his knee injury and that remaining in custody would deteriorate his health.
Court’s Judgment:
After hearing both sides, Justice Sanjeev Narula of the Delhi High Court granted regular bail to Sushil Kumar, taking into consideration the length of his incarceration, his health conditions, and the stage of the trial. The court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations but emphasized that bail does not equate to acquittal. The court observed that the accused had already been in custody since May 2021 and that the trial was still ongoing with no immediate conclusion in sight. The judge also noted that while the charges against Kumar were severe, the principle of bail being the rule and jail the exception had to be applied judiciously.
The court imposed strict conditions on Kumar’s bail to prevent any possibility of witness tampering or flight risk. It directed him to furnish a bail bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties of the same amount and to report to the police regularly. The court also barred him from making any contact with the victims’ families or witnesses in the case. Kumar was warned that any violation of the bail conditions would result in its cancellation. The judge reaffirmed that the trial court would continue to examine the evidence and that Kumar’s release on bail did not affect the merits of the prosecution’s case.
This ruling has sparked debates on whether high-profile individuals receive preferential treatment in legal proceedings. While the court has reiterated that the bail does not signify innocence, the decision underscores the legal principle that prolonged detention without conviction should not be punitive. The outcome of the trial remains crucial in determining Kumar’s fate, as the prosecution continues to push for strict legal consequences for the accused.