CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

Liberty Of Accused Must Not Undermine Justice To Victim”: Supreme Court Cancels Bail Of Wrestler Sushil Kumar In Sagar Dhankhar Murder Case

13 August 2025 1:39 PM

By: sayum


On August 13, 2025, the Supreme Court of India overturned the Delhi High Court’s order granting bail to Olympian wrestler Sushil Kumar in the Sagar Dhankhar murder case and directed him to surrender within seven days. A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra delivered the order while hearing an appeal filed by Ashok Dhankad, father of the deceased wrestler Sagar Dhankhar, challenging the Delhi High Court’s March 2025 decision to release Kumar on bail.

Case Background
Sushil Kumar was arrested in May 2021 in connection with the alleged murder of 27-year-old Sagar Dhankhar, a former junior national wrestling champion, at Chhatrasal Stadium, Delhi. The incident reportedly involved a violent clash in which Kumar and his associates were accused of assaulting Dhankhar, leading to his death.

The Delhi High Court granted Kumar bail earlier this year, noting that the trial had seen only 30 out of 186 prosecution witnesses examined over a three-year period, highlighting procedural delays.

Challenge Before the Supreme Court
Ashok Dhankad, in his appeal, argued that granting bail was inappropriate due to serious allegations of witness intimidation. He alleged that during an earlier period of interim bail, Kumar had threatened a key witness, raising concerns over the fairness of the trial if he remained out on bail.

The Supreme Court, taking note of these allegations and the gravity of the offence, decided to set aside the bail order and directed Kumar to surrender to authorities within a week.

Case Title: Ashok Dhankad v. State NCT of Delhi and Anr. | SLP(Crl) No. 5370/2025
Date of Decision: August 13, 2025

Latest Legal News