Supreme Court of India
ASHOK DHANKADversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 974
- Decided
- 13 August 2025
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- SANJAY KAROL
Holding
The High Court erred in granting regular bail as it failed to consider material factors like the gravity of the crime, the accused's absconding, and the risk of influencing witnesses, and thus the bail order is set aside.
Summary
The appellant, Ashok Dhankad, challenged a Delhi High Court order that granted regular bail to accused wrestler Sushil Kumar under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with an FIR alleging abduction, assault with dangerous weapons, and the death of a complainant's son. The High Court had not considered the accused's prior absconding, the issuance of non‑bailable warrants, the cash reward announced for his capture, or his potential influence over witnesses. The Supreme Court examined the legal standards for granting bail, emphasizing that an appeal against bail must focus on whether the lower court exercised its discretion perversely, illegally, or without considering relevant factors such as the gravity of the offence and risk of tampering. Citing precedents, the Court held that the High Court failed to apply the requisite parameters and therefore erred in granting bail. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the bail order and directed the accused to surrender, allowing a fresh bail application only if circumstances change. The appeal was allowed, and the bail order was vacated.
Issues considered
- Whether the Delhi High Court correctly exercised its discretion under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in granting regular bail to the accused.
- Whether the High Court considered all relevant factors such as the seriousness of the offence, the accused's prior absconding, risk of witness tampering, and societal influence while granting bail.
- Whether an appeal against a bail order can be entertained on grounds of perversity, illegality, or failure to consider material factors, distinct from cancellation of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959s. 25, s. 27, s. 54, s. 59
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023s. 483
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 188, s. 269, s. 302, s. 307, s. 308, s. 323, s. 325, s. 34, s. 341, s. 342, s. 364, s. 365, s. 452, s. 506
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards to the sustainability of the order passed by the High Court enlarging the accused on regular bail u/s.483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Headnotes† Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – s.483 – Enlargement on FIR registered against the accused and others under the provisions of IPC and the Arms Act, for abducting certain individuals, violently attacking them with dangerous weapons, and causing grievous injuries, resulting in the death of the complainant’s son – Accused was absconding,
Subjects
BailEnlargement on regular bailAbductionDangerous weaponsGrievous injuriesMobile deviceInjured personsDeadly weaponsAbscondNon-bailable warrantsWrestler and OlympianRepresented the nation at the international levelWitnessesHostileSetting aside an order granting bailCancellation of bail
Judgment
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 785 : 2025 INSC 974
Ashok Dhankad
v.
State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No. 3495 of 2025)
13 August 2025
[Sanjay Karol* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as regards to the sustainability of the order passed
by the High Court enlarging the accused on regular bail u/s.483
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Headnotes†
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – s.483 –
Enlargement on regular bail – Sustainability – FIR registered
against the accused and others under the provisions of IPC
and the Arms Act, for abducting certain individuals, violently
attacking them with dangerous weapons, and causing
grievous injuries, resulting in the death of the complainant’s
son – Accused was absconding, non-bailable warrants issued
against him, and was later arrested – High Court granted
regular bail to the accused whereas, the other accused persons
remained in custody – Challenge to:
Held: High Court erroneously passed an order releasing the accused
on bail – While considerations such as the period of custody and
testimonies of key prosecution witnesses having been recorded are
relevant, the Court erred by inter alia, not considering the grievous
nature of the crime, the possibility of influencing the trial by the
accused and the conduct of the accused during investigation –
After registration of the FIR against the accused, he remained
absconded and evaded arrest, as such non-bailable warrants had
to be issued against him and his associates, securing their custody,
however his whereabouts remained unknown and consequently
the police declared a cash reward for giving information about the
accused – High Court ought to have taken this relevant fact into its
deliberation, while adjudicating the entitlement of the accused for
regular bail – This Court must also be cognizant of the seriousness
of the allegations against the accused – Accused persons allegedly
* Author
786 [2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
abducted certain individuals; violently attacked them with dangerous
weapons; and caused grievous injuries, resulting in the unfortunate
death of the complainant’s son – Also, loaded firearm recovered
from the vehicle of these persons, other weapons stained in blood
also recovered from the spot of the crime – Recording of the alleged
incident-accused attacking the injured persons with deadly weapons,
found in the phones of one of the co-accused persons – While the
veracity of the said evidence is a matter of trial, but these allegations
are shocking and serious in nature – This Court cannot lose sight
of the influence an accused wields in society while considering the
grant of bail – Accused is a celebrated wrestler and Olympian, who
has represented the nation at the international level, and 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 – Allegations of pressurizing witnesses made,
before the order granting bail was passed – Thus, the impugned
order cannot be sustained and is set aside – Penal Code, 1860 –
ss.308, 325, 323, 341, 506, 188, 269, 34 – Arms Act, 1959 – ss.25,
54, 59. [Paras 20-27]
Bail – Setting aside an order granting bail vis-à-vis cancellation
of bail – Distinction between – Explained. [Paras 15-19]
Case Law Cited
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2005) 2 SCC 42;
Jayaben v. Tejas Kanubhai Zala [2022] 1 SCR 18 : (2022) 3 SCC
230; Y v. State of Rajasthan [2022] 3 SCR 27 : (2022) 9 SCC 269;
Meena Devi v. State of U.P [2022] 4 SCR 23 : (2022) 14 SCC
368; State of Rajasthan v. Indraj Singh Etc., 2025 SCC Online
SC 518; Ajwar v. Waseem [2024] 5 SCR 575 : (2024) 10 SCC
768; Jaibunisha v. Meherban & Ors (2022) 5 SCC 465; Bhagwan
Singh v. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu [2023] 11 SCR 469 : (2023) 13
SCC 549 – referred to.
List of Acts
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Penal Code, 1860;
Arms Act, 1959.
List of Keywords
Bail; Enlargment on regular bail; Abduction; Dangerous weapons;
Grievous injuries; Mobile device; Injured persons; Deadly
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 787
Ashok Dhankad v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.
weapons; Abscond; Non-bailable warrants; Wrestler and Olympian;
Represented the nation at the international level; Witnesses; Hostile;
Setting aside an order granting bail; Cancellation of bail.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
3495 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.03.2025 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in BA No. 2654 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Siddharth Mridul, Sr. Adv., Ms. Joshini Tuli, Joginder Tuli, Ishaan
Kapoor, Mrs. Gargi Khanna, Ms. Minnat Ullah, Ms. Madhurima
Mridul, Deepak Chhikara, Sohil Batra, Ms. Taniya Qureshi,
Ms. Sonu Kumari.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G., Mahesh Jethmalani, Sr. Adv., Mukesh
Kumar Maroria, Amit Sharma-b, Prakash Gautam, Shubhendu
Anand, Alabhya Damija, Ravi Sharma, Sumit Shokeen, Anjani
Kumar Rai, Vaibhav Thaledi.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Sanjay Karol, J.
Leave granted.
2. The grant of bail constitutes a discretionary judicial remedy that
necessitates a delicate and context-sensitive balancing of competing
legal and societal interests. On one hand lies the imperative to uphold
the personal liberty of the accused -an entrenched constitutional
value reinforced by the presumption of innocence, which remains
a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence. On the other hand,
the court must 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 is sacrosanct, particularly in a
788 [2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law, it cannot be
construed in a manner that dilutes the seriousness of heinous or
grave offences or undermines public confidence in the administration
of justice. The exercise of judicial discretion in bail matters, therefore,
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.
3. The case at hand is one such case, where this Court has been called
upon to ensure the above-mentioned balance. The present Appeal
has been preferred by the complainant against the final judgment
and order dated 4th March 2025 passed by the High Court of Delhi
at New Delhi in Bail Application No. 2654/2024 whereby Respondent
No. 2, Sushil Kumar (hereinafter the ‘Accused’) came to be enlarged
on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 in connection with FIR No. 218/2021 under Sections
308, 325, 323, 341, 506, 188, 269, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter ‘IPC’) and Sections 25, 54, 59 of the Arms Act, 1959.
4. At the outset, we would be well served to remind ourselves of the
observations made by three learned judges of this Court in Kalyan
Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan1 which are as follows:
“18. It is trite law that personal liberty cannot be taken
away except in accordance with the procedure established
by law. Personal liberty is a constitutional guarantee.
However, Article 21 which guarantees the above right also
contemplates deprivation of personal liberty by procedure
established by law. Under the criminal laws of this country,
a person accused of offences which are non-bailable is
liable to be detained in custody during the pendency of
trial unless he is enlarged on bail in accordance with law.
Such detention cannot be questioned as being violative of
Article 21 since the same is authorised by law. But even
persons accused of non-bailable offences are entitled to
bail if the court concerned comes to the conclusion that
the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case
1 (2005) 2 SCC 42.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 789
Ashok Dhankad v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.
against him and/or if the court is satisfied for reasons to
be recorded that in spite of the existence of prima facie
case there is a need to release such persons on bail where
fact situations require it to do so…”
[See also: Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of
Investigation2; Vinod Bhandari v. State of Madhya
Pradesh 3 ]
Prosecution case against the Accused
5. As per the charge sheet, police investigation revealed that on the
intervening night of 4th - 5th May 2021, the Accused and his associates
abducted one Mr. Ravindra @ Bhinda and Mr. Amit @ Khagad from
Shalimar Bagh and Mr. Sagar, Mr. Jai Bhagwan @ Sonu and Mr.
Bhagat @ Bhagtu from Model Town, New Delhi. All of them were
taken to Chhatrasal Stadium, where they attacked them with wooden
lathis and sticks, with an intention to kill them due to personal enmity.
The Accused persons also fired gunshots, due to which a PCR call
was received wherein the caller reported that two men fired gunshots
near Chhatarsal Stadium.
6. ASI Jitender Singh took reins of the investigation and arrived at
the spot of the alleged crime. On enquiry, the police party were
informed that the Accused and his associates, after beating the
injured persons, fled away.
7. At the spot of the incident though five vehicles were found, but none
was present. A ‘parna’ stained with blood was recovered from the
registered vehicle of the Accused, one amongst five. The four other
vehicles belonged to his associates and upon a search of the said
vehicles, a loaded double barrel gun was found with 3 cartridges
of live ammunition. Additionally, two wooden sticks were recovered.
Blood samples were taken from different spots and objects from the
scene of the crime.
8. The police party were informed that the injured persons had been
taken to BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri, New Delhi for treatment.
Upon arriving at the hospital, ASI Jitender Singh recorded their
2 (2012) 1 SCC 40.
3 (2015) 11 SCC 502.
790 [2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
MLCs. One of the injured persons, Mr. Sagar, succumbed to his
injuries while undergoing treatment. His postmortem captured the
cause of death as, “cerebral damage as a result of blunt force/object
impact. All injuries are ante-mortem in nature.” Thereafter, a charge
under Section 302, IPC was also added against the Accused and
his associates.
9. During investigation, one of the associates, Mr. Prince, came to be
arrested. A mobile device recovered from his possession, which
held within it, which had a video recording of the incident, allegedly
depicting the Accused attacking the injured persons with deadly
weapons. The mobile was sent for FSL examination, and the expert
report concluded that, “no sign of edit/adulteration/tampering was
observed in the video file.”
10. The Accused was absconding at the time of investigation and
consequently, on 15th May 2021, non-bailable warrants were issued
against him. On 18th May 2021 the Delhi Police announced cash
reward for any information about his whereabouts. He was finally
arrested on 23rd May 2021.
11. Trial commenced against all the Accused. Charges were brought
under Sections 302, 307, 308, 364, 365, 452, 323, 342 along with
other Sections of the IPC and Sections 25(1)(B) and 27(1) of the
Arms Act, 1959. As on date 35 out of 189 witnesses stand examined
by the Trial Court and all other 21 accused persons, apart from the
present Accused, continue to remain in custody with respect to the
subject FIR.
Our View
12. We have heard the parties at length. Mr. Siddharth Mridul, learned
Senior Counsel appeared for the Appellant-complainant. The NCT of
Delhi was represented by Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, learned Additional
Solicitor General, and Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, learned Senior
Counsel was for the Accused. The learned senior counsel for the
Appellant-complainant has prayed for bail granted to the Accused
by the High Court of Delhi to be set aside. The significant points of
challenge are that the Courts below did not take the conduct and
influence of the Accused, as also the seriousness of the allegations
into consideration. The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing
on behalf of the State of NCT of Delhi has supported the case of the
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 791
Ashok Dhankad v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.
Appellant-complainant and has further submitted that the Accused
is attempting to influence witnesses.
13. Meanwhile, Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, learned Senior Counsel for
the Accused, has submitted that the Courts below correctly passed
the impugned order releasing the Accused on bail. To buttress his
submission, he emphasized that the Accused has never misused
the liberty of temporary bail, granted to him on earlier occasions.
Further, he submitted that given the nature of evidence on record,
the Accused is entitled to bail.
14. At the outset, we must clarify that setting aside an order granting bail
and cancellation of bail are two distinct concepts. While the former
contemplates the correctness of the order itself, the latter pertains
to the conduct of the Accused subsequent to the order granting
bail. Judicial pronouncements of this Court have time and again
reiterated this position.
Law on the issue
15. This Court in Jayaben v. Tejas Kanubhai Zala4, while setting aside
the order granting bail to the Accused therein, had expounded that
different considerations must be applied while considering an order
of releasing an Accused on bail and an application for cancellation
(which would include breach of bail conditions). Moreover, the Court
observed that the conduct of the accused subsequent to an order
granting bail would not be relevant while considering an appeal
against such order.
16. The discussion of this Court in Y v. State of Rajasthan5 underscored
that an order granting bail can be tested on illegality, perversity,
arbitrariness and being based on unjustified material. While
setting aside the order granting bail, the Court made the following
observations:
“15. It is worth noting that what is being considered in this
case relates to whether the High Court has exercised the
discretionary power under Section 439CrPC in granting
bail appropriately. Such an assessment is different from
4 (2022) 3 SCC 230.
5 (2022) 9 SCC 269.
792 [2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
deciding whether circumstances subsequent to the grant
of bail have made it necessary to cancel the same. The
first situation requires the Court to analyse whether the
order granting bail was illegal, perverse, unjustified or
arbitrary. On the other hand, an application for cancellation
of bail looks at whether supervening circumstances have
occurred warranting cancellation.
16. In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State
of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527] this
Court held as follows : (SCC p. 513, para 12)
“12. We have referred to certain principles to be
kept in mind while granting bail, as has been laid
down by this Court from time to time. It is well
settled in law that cancellation of bail after it is
granted because the accused has misconducted
himself or of some supervening circumstances
warranting such cancellation have occurred is
in a different compartment altogether than an
order granting bail which is unjustified, illegal and
perverse. If in a case, the relevant factors which
should have been taken into consideration while
dealing with the application for bail have not been
taken note of, or bail is founded on irrelevant
considerations, indisputably the superior court
can set aside the order of such a grant of bail.
Such a case belongs to a different category
and is in a separate realm. While dealing with
a case of second nature, the court does not
dwell upon the violation of conditions by the
accused or the supervening circumstances that
have happened subsequently. It, on the contrary,
delves into the justifiability and the soundness
of the order passed by the court.”
17. In the present case, it is necessary to determine whether
the High Court while granting bail to Respondent 2-accused
has properly exercised its discretion under Section 439
CrPC by following various parameters laid down by this
Court. A bare perusal of the impugned order [Omprakash
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 793
Ashok Dhankad v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.
v. State of Rajasthan, 2021 SCC OnLine Raj 3499] passed
by the High Court does not suggest that the Court has
considered any of the relevant factors for grant of bail.”
17. A division bench of this Court in Meena Devi v. State of U.P.6 had
observed to similar effect:
“26. At the cost of repetition, it may be highlighted that
the considerations that weigh with the appellate court
when called upon to examine the correctness of an order
granting bail is not on the same footing when it comes
to examining an application moved for cancellation of
bail. The yardstick for testing the correctness of an order
granting bail is whether the court below has exercised
its discretion in an improper or arbitrary manner thereby
vitiating the said order. When it comes to assessing an
application seeking cancellation of bail, the appellate court
looks out for, amongst others, supervening circumstances
or any violation of the conditions of bail imposed on the
person who has been accorded such a relief.”
(emphasis supplied)
18. More recently, this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Indraj Singh
Etc.7, while setting aside the bail granted to a person accused of an
offence under Sections 419, 420, 467 of the IPC and Section 3 &
10 of the Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means
Act), 2022, placed reliance on an earlier decision of this Court in
Ajwar v. Waseem8 and observed:
“8.3 The discussion made in Ajwar v. Waseem3 by a
coordinate Bench of this Court (which included one of us,
i.e., Amanullah J.) is on point. The relevant paragraphs
are as under:—
“Relevant parameters for granting bail
26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be
granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence,
6 (2022) 14 SCC 368.
7 2025 SCC Online SC 518.
8 (2024) 10 SCC 768.
794 [2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of
the accusations made against the accused, the manner in
which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the
gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused,
the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability
of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence,
if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the
accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the
possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the
courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing
the accused on bail. [Refer : Chaman Lal v. State of U.P.
[Chaman Lal v. State of U.P., (2004) 7 SCC 525 : 2004
SCC (Cri) 1974]; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan
[Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC
528 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977]; Masroor v. State of U.P.
[Masroor v. State of U.P., (2009) 14 SCC 286 : (2010) 1 SCC
(Cri) 1368]; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee
[Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14
SCC 496 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765]; Neeru Yadav v. State
of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC
508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527]; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State
(NCT of Delhi) [Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi),
(2018) 12 SCC 129 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 425]; Mahipal v.
Rajesh Kumar [Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC
118 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 558].]
27. It is equally well settled that bail once granted, ought
not to be cancelled in a mechanical manner. However,
an unreasoned or perverse order of bail is always open
to interference by the superior court. If there are serious
allegations against the accused, even if he has not misused
the bail granted to him, such an order can be cancelled
by the same Court that has granted the bail. Bail can also
be revoked by a superior court if it transpires that the
courts below have ignored the relevant material available
on record or not looked into the gravity of the offence or
the impact on the society resulting in such an order. In
P v. State of M.P. [P v. State of M.P., (2022) 15 SCC 211]
decided by a three-Judge Bench of this Court [authored by
one of us (Hima Kohli, J.)] has spelt out the considerations
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 795
Ashok Dhankad v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.
that must weigh with the Court for interfering in an order
granting bail to an accused under Section 439(1) CrPC
in the following words : (SCC p. 224, para 24)
“24. As can be discerned from the above
decisions, for cancelling bail once granted, the
court must consider whether any supervening
circumstances have arisen or the conduct of the
accused post grant of bail demonstrates that it is
no longer conducive to a fair trial to permit him to
retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of
bail during trial [Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana,
(1995) 1 SCC 349 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 237]. To
put it differently, in ordinary circumstances, this
Court would be loathe to interfere with an order
passed by the court below granting bail but if
such an order is found to be illegal or perverse
or premised on material that is irrelevant, then
such an order is susceptible to scrutiny and
interference by the appellate court.”
Considerations for setting aside bail orders
28. The considerations that weigh with the appellate court
for setting aside the bail order on an application being
moved by the aggrieved party include any supervening
circumstances that may have occurred after granting relief
to the accused, the conduct of the accused while on bail,
any attempt on the part of the accused to procrastinate,
resulting in delaying the trial, any instance of threats being
extended to the witnesses while on bail, any attempt on
the part of the accused to tamper with the evidence in
any manner. We may add that this list is only illustrative
and not exhaustive. However, the court must be cautious
that at the stage of granting bail, only a prima facie case
needs to be examined and detailed reasons relating to
the merits of the case that may cause prejudice to the
accused, ought to be avoided. Suffice it is to state that
the bail order should reveal the factors that have been
considered by the Court for granting relief to the accused.”
(emphasis supplied)
796 [2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
19. The principles which emerge as a result of the above discussion
are as follows:
(i) An appeal against grant of bail cannot be considered to be
on the same footing as an application for cancellation of bail;
(ii) The Court concerned must not venture into a threadbare analysis
of the evidence adduced by prosecution. The merits of such
evidence must not be adjudicated at the stage of bail;
(iii) An order granting bail must reflect application of mind and
assessment of the relevant factors for grant of bail that have
been elucidated by this Court. [See: Y v. State of Rajasthan
(Supra); Jaibunisha v. Meherban & Ors9 and Bhagwan
Singh v. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu10]
(iv) An appeal against grant of bail may be entertained by a superior
Court on grounds such as perversity; illegality; inconsistency
with law; relevant factors not been taken into consideration
including gravity of the offence and impact of the crime;
(v) However, the Court may not take the conduct of an accused
subsequent to the grant bail into consideration while considering
an appeal against the grant of such bail. Such grounds must
be taken in an application for cancellation of bail; and
(vi) An appeal against grant of bail must not be allowed to be used
as a retaliatory measure. Such an appeal must be confined
only to the grounds discussed above.
20. Keeping in view the above expositions of law, this Court is of the
view that the High Court has erroneously passed an order releasing
the Accused on bail. While considerations such as the period of
custody and testimonies of key prosecution witnesses having been
recorded are relevant, the Court errored by inter alia, not considering
the grievous nature of the crime, the possibility of influencing the trial
by the Accused and the conduct of the accused during investigation.
21. It is a matter of record that after registration of the subject FIR, inter
alia against the Accused, he remained absconding and evaded
9 (2022) 5 SCC 465.
10 (2023) 13 SCC 549.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 797
Ashok Dhankad v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.
arrest. This had resulted in the passing of the Order at Annexure
P2, by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate - 03, North: Rohini,
whereby non-bailable warrants had to be issued against him and
his associates, securing their custody. Despite such warrants being
issued, his whereabouts remained unknown and consequently, on
18th May 2021, as per Annexure P3, the Delhi Police, declared a
cash reward for giving information about the Accused as he was
evading custody and remained absconding. Despite a submission
to this effect before the High Court, the above facts did not form
part of the consideration of the order releasing him on bail. The High
Court ought to have taken this relevant fact into its deliberation, while
adjudicating the entitlement of the present Accused for regular bail.
22. This Court must also be cognizant of the seriousness of the
allegations against the Accused. 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. The accused persons,
allegedly abducted certain individuals; violently attacked them with
dangerous weapons; and caused grievous injuries. The injuries
were of such nature that they resulted in the unfortunate death of
the Complainant’s son.
23. From the contents thereof, it is also borne that a loaded firearm was
recovered from the vehicle of these persons. Other weapons stained
in blood were also recovered from the spot of the crime. Moreover,
it cannot be disputed that the recording of the alleged incident was
found in the phones of one of the co-accused persons. While the
veracity of the above evidence is a matter of trial, but there can be
no doubt that these allegations are shocking and serious in nature.
24. Furthermore, this Court cannot lose sight of the influence an
accused wields in society while considering the grant of bail, as
was expounded by this Court in Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar11.
Undoubtedly, the Accused is a celebrated wrestler and an Olympian,
who has represented the nation at the international level. 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. Needless to add that
allegations of pressurizing the witnesses have been made, before
11 (2023) 13 SCC 549.
798 [2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the order granting bail was passed. Certain witnesses had, in writing
lodged complaints, apprehending threat to their lives at the behest
of the Accused.
25. On the above aspect, the State has further submitted that the
whenever Accused was granted temporary bail [five occasions i.e.
on 4th November 2022 (8 days); 6th March 2023 (3 days); 23rd July
2023 (7 days); 30th July 2023 (9 days) and 18th August 2023 (2
days)] the visible pattern seen is that, the prosecution witness be
it for whatever reason, influence or threat, upon examination have
turned hostile. However, at this stage we refrain from affirming seal
of approval thereupon. But pertinently, this pattern underscores the
possibility of interference into the trial by the Accused. Noticeably,
out of 35 witnesses examined, 28 have turned hostile.
26. The cumulative result of the above discussion is that the impugned
order cannot be sustained. We clarify that the above observations
are only 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.
27. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the High Court
of Delhi in Bail Application No. 2654/2024 titled as Sushil Kumar vs.
State of NCT of Delhi, is set aside. The present Appeal is allowed.
Let the Accused/Respondent No. 2 surrender before the concerned
Court within one week. It shall be 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.
Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Bail"Sign in to search