Highlighting the sensitive equation and everlasting question between a defendant’s right to liberty and the average citizen’s interest in maintaining the integrity of criminal proceedings, the Supreme Court of India recently delivered a landmark decision in Ashok Dhankad v. State of NCT of Delhi [2025 INSC 974]. The Apex Court explained how appeal against bail was different from cancellation of bail.
The case involved a noted and famous Olympian wrestler, Sushil Kumar, who was in negative limelight for being accused of abducting and brutally assaulting the victim. Such abuse ultimately led to the death of one, and this was later recognised as the Chhatrasal Stadium incident (2021). Following the arrest of the accused, the Delhi High Court granted a regular bail to Sushil Kumar in March 2025, which was challenged by the victim’s father. The Supreme Court of India struck down the decision by the Delhi High Court on 13th August 2025, emphasising the seriousness of criminal offences and how courts must approach bail pleas.
The Incident: Wrestling Turns Fatal
The events of the 4th and 5th May 2021 at Delhi’s Chhatrasal Stadium led to the filing of a case and its evolution.
● The chargesheet reflected that Sushil Kumar and his accomplices had abducted multiple persons.
● They were allegedly abducted to be taken to the stadium, then later subjected to physical assault with sticks and wooden clubs and even gunfire.
● One of them succumbed to brain damage due to blunt force trauma.
● It was later confirmed that the injuries sustained were ante-mortem and consistent with a brutal assault through the Forensic analysis.
Evidence Unearthed
● While the accused persons fled away, a vehicle containing blood-stained cloth material, belonging to Sushil Kumar, was found at the spot along with four other vehicles.
● Other evidence recovered included the blood-stained sticks and a loaded fi rearm with live cartridges.
● The most alarming evidence recovered was the video recording of the assault in Sushil Kumar’s accomplice’s phone, and that video was not manipulated according to the forensic analysis.
Conduct of the accused for Considering Bail
Sushil Kumar chose to go into hiding for weeks after the filing of the FIR instead of cooperating, which ultimately led the courts to issue non-bailable warrants. Due to his hiding, the Delhi Police force announced a reward for his capture on May 18, 2021, before his eventual capture on May 23, 2021.
The Trial So Far
The charges filed against Sushil Kumar and his accomplices include:
● Murder (Sec. 302 IPC)
● Attempt to murder (Sec. 307 IPC)
● Abduction (Secs. 364, 365 IPC)
● Criminal intimidation, unlawful restraint, rioting, etc.
● Arms Act offences
The prosecution noted 189 witnesses, among whom 35 had been examined; however, 28 of the 35 later withdrew their statements.
The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to the accused, citing the long period of custody and the progress in the case. This compelled the victim’s father, Ashok Dhankad, to appeal before the apex court to overturn the ruling.
Supreme Court’s on Appeal and Cancellation of Bail
Concerning the appeal, a detailed analysis of bail jurisprudence was conducted by the Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Sanjay Karol. The Apex Court then clarified a critical distinction:
● Setting aside bail: Analysing the legality and justification of the original order that granted the bail.
● Bail cancellation: When misconduct or any other circumstances justify the cancellation of bail that was granted legally and on valid grounds.
The first category was fit for this case.
Key Principles Reaffirmed
The Supreme Court’s Decision to set aside the bail of the accused led to the emergence of the following guidelines:
- Appeal against bail is not equivalent to application seeking cancellation of bail.
- A thorough investigation is necessary for bail in serious crimes. However, evidence should not undergo threadbare analysis and not be adjudicated on merits at the stage of bail.
- The Bail orders must be well-reasoned with a strong application of mind; a lack of reasoned investigation makes the trial vulnerable and denies justice.
- Appeal against bail may be made for perversity; illegality; inconsistency with law; relevant factors not considered, etc.
- The court should not consider the accused’s conduct post bail while considering an appeal against bail. That may be done while considering an application seeking cancellation of bail.
- An appeal against bail should not be retaliatory but confined to aforementioned grounds.
The Court was of the view that an accused who resists arrest cannot claim bail as a right; evasion and misuse of liberty are essential factors. The accused’s influence was a crucial consideration, particularly in high-profile cases where there is a genuine risk of intimidation and social pressure. When there is a definite pattern of witness hostility, such patterns cannot be ignored by the courts.
Where the High Court Erred
The High Court’s justification was found to be erroneous and inadequate by the Supreme Court, as it disregarded:
1. Abscondence: The constant resistance of the law by Sushil Kumar, through fleeing, led to the issuance of warrants and a police reward.
2. Severity of Allegations: Use of weapons, recovery of admissible proof and vicious assault resulting in the death of the victim.
3. Influence & Threats: Due to his prominence as a successful athlete, he possessed significant social impact, which posed real risks to the safety of witnesses and the fairness of the trial.
4. Witness Hostility: The withdrawal of 28 witnesses could not be accepted or taken lightly. The High Court’s failure to consider these crucial factors was noted, and the apex court deemed the High Court’s ruling to be perverse, arbitrary and contrary to settled principles.
Jurisprudential Anchors
The legal precedents paved the way for the judgment.
● Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2005): Bail can be granted even in non-bailable offences, but it is the court’s duty to weigh in the seriousness of the offence, its influence on society and the self-evident case.
● State of Rajasthan v. Indraj Singh (2025): The case emphasised the impact of bail on both the trial and society at large.
These legal precedents collectively describe bail jurisprudence as a complex balancing dynamic rather than being a calculated, rigid mechanism.
The Verdict
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal against Delhi High Court’s order and set aside the bail order. The Court directed wrestler Sushil Kumar to surrender within one week.
● Only when the circumstances change signifi cantly does the accused be entitled to seek bail afresh. While concluding, the Court explained that its decisions are limited to the bail aspect and should not prejudice the ongoing trial.
Conclusion
The Sushil Kumar murder case has become a landmark case through the Supreme Court’s judgment, which sets a precedent that granting of bail is not just a formality. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution affirms the Right to Life and Liberty, which the Supreme Court deems sacred but not unfettered. The apex court insists that context, reasoning and public interest pave the way for justice and judicial discretion. This sensational case, through its ruling, has become an indicator to victims as well as the general public that the Courts shall ensure and uphold justice, not just be a guardian of liberty.
The Supreme Court’s distinction of appeal against bail and cancellation of bail is decoded by our intern, Ms Trinetra Thobde. She has been assisting the team in bringing informational legal blogs.
