Last Updated:
Sushil Kumar’s bail denied again by Delhi High Court in Sagar Dhankhar murder case. Court cites witness influence, gravity of offense.
Sushil Kumar celebrates with his flag after wrestling against South Africa’s Jahannes Botha during the men’s freestyle 74 kg gold medal wrestling match at the 2018 Gold Coast Commonwealth Games (Picture credit: AFP)
Two-time Olympic medallist Sushil Kumar’s bail plea in connection with fellow wrestler Sagar Dhankhar’s murder in 2021 has been rejected yet again by the Delhi High Court.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar dismissed Sushil’s bail application on Thursday, citing concerns about his potential to influence witnesses, which had also been raised by the Supreme Court while cancelling his earlier bail.
The court took into account Sushil’s behaviour before arrest, the gravity of the offence and his ability to influence the outcome of the ongoing trial as well.
The judge noted that while bail is the rule and jail the exception, the offence in this case involved a ‘premeditated and gruesome assault resulting in death’. He added that the charge was supported by the recovery of a firearm, video evidence and a substantial body of material that is yet to be tested during the trial.
Seeking bail, Sushil’s counsel argued that Sagar’s father, whose complaint had led to the earlier cancellation of bail, hadn’t supported the prosecution’s case during the trial.
It was therefore argued that the ‘change in circumstances’, coupled with Sushil having spent more than five years in custody and only formal and official witnesses remaining to be examined, entitled him to regular bail.
Delhi Police and Sagar’s father opposed the bail application.
The court noted that the claim that Sagar’s father’s testimony didn’t support the prosecution was contested.
“Whether the deposition of Ashok Dhankad (deceased’s father) does or doesn’t support the prosecution is, moreover, a matter of appreciation of evidence that must await the outcome by the trial court,” the court said.
“It can’t be treated as a change in circumstances sufficient to unlock the door that the Supreme Court closed. In these circumstances, this court isn’t persuaded that the petitioner has made out a case either for a genuine change in circumstances within the meaning of the liberty reserved by the Supreme Court, or, independently, for the grant of regular bail,” the court added.
August 11, 2026, 18:00 IST
Read More
