Summary and Analysis of Ashok Dhankad vs State NCT of Delhi
1. Heading of the Judgment
Ashok Dhankad vs State NCT of Delhi & Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No. 3495 of 2025; Supreme Court of India)
Date: August 13, 2025
Judges: Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.
Outcome: Bail granted to accused (Sushil Kumar) by Delhi High Court set aside; accused directed to surrender.
2. Relevant Laws & Sections
Statutes Involved:
Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860: Sections 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 308 (culpable homicide), 325 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 341 (wrongful restraint), 506 (criminal intimidation), 188 (disobedience to public order), 269 (negligent act likely to spread infection), 34 (common intention).
Arms Act, 1959: Sections 25, 54, 59 (illegal possession/use of arms).
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Section 483 (grant of regular bail).
Legal Precedents Cited:
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2005)
Jayaben v. Tejas Kanubhai Zala (2022)
Y v. State of Rajasthan (2022)
Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar (2023)
(Full citations in judgment)
3. Basic Case Details
Parties:
Appellant: Ashok Dhankad (complainant).
Respondents: State of NCT Delhi & Sushil Kumar (accused).Origin: Appeal against Delhi High Court’s bail order (March 4, 2025) granting bail to Sushil Kumar in FIR No. 218/2021.
Allegations:
Accused and associates abducted 5 men (May 4–5, 2021).
Victims were brutally assaulted with wooden sticks and firearms at Chhatrasal Stadium (Delhi).
One victim (Sagar) died due to head injuries; others grievously injured.
Loaded firearm, blood-stained weapons, and video evidence of the attack recovered.Trial Status: 35 of 189 witnesses examined; 28 turned hostile.
4. Explanation of the Judgment
Core Legal Principles on Bail
The Supreme Court reiterated the following principles from precedents:
Bail is discretionary and requires balancing personal liberty (presumption of innocence) against societal interests (gravity of crime, witness safety, trial integrity).
Distinction between setting aside bail vs. cancellation:
Setting aside bail challenges the legality of the bail order itself (e.g., ignoring relevant factors).
Cancellation focuses on post-bail misconduct (e.g., witness tampering).Factors for granting bail:
Nature/gravity of the offence.
Prima facie evidence strength.
Risk of accused fleeing or influencing witnesses.
Accused’s criminal antecedents and societal influence.
Why the High Court’s Bail Order Was Flawed
The Supreme Court held the High Court erred by:
Ignoring the accused’s conduct during investigation:
Sushil Kumar absconded for 18 days post-FIR, necessitating non-bailable warrants and a cash reward for his arrest (May 18, 2021).Overlooking gravity of the offence:
Charges included murder, abduction, and use of deadly weapons. Death resulted from "cerebral damage due to blunt force."
Evidence included a video recording of the attack (recovered from co-accused) and blood-stained weapons.Neglecting the accused’s influence:
As a celebrated wrestler/Olympian, Sushil Kumar wielded significant societal influence, raising risks of witness intimidation.
28 of 35 witnesses turned hostile during his temporary bail periods (2022–2023), indicating possible interference.Failing to consider relevant factors:
The High Court focused only on "custody period" and "examination of some witnesses" but omitted the above critical aspects.
Supreme Court’s Decision
The bail order was set aside as "illegal and perverse" for non-application of judicial mind to material facts.
Accused directed to surrender within one week.
Accused may reapply for bail if circumstances change, subject to trial court’s discretion.
Clarification: Observations are limited to bail validity; not a comment on trial merits.
Key Quotation
"While liberty is sacrosanct... it cannot be construed in a manner that dilutes the seriousness of heinous offences or undermines public confidence in justice."
(Para 2 of the Judgment)