Supreme Court of India
Ashok Dhankad vs State Nct Of Delhi on 13 August, 2025
Author: Sanjay Karol
Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra, Sanjay Karol
2025 INSC 974
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3495 OF 2025
(@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5370 of 2025)
ASHOK DHANKAD … APPELLANT (S)
Versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
AND ANR. … RESPONDENT (S)
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
Signature Not Verified
remain equally mindful of the gravity of the alleged offence, the
Digitally signed by
RAJNI MUKHI
Date: 2025.08.13
16:54:54 IST
Reason:
broader societal implications of the accused’s release, and the
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) 5370 of 2025 Page 1 of 16
need to preserve the integrity and fairness of the investigative
and trial processes. While liberty is sacrosanct, particularly in a
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.
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) 5370 of 2025 Page 2 of 16
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 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
Pradesh3]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
1 (2005) 2 SCC 42.
2 (2012) 1 SCC 40.
3 (2015) 11 SCC 502.
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) 5370 of 2025 Page 3 of 16
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
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) 5370 of 2025 Page 4 of 16
treatment. Upon arriving at the hospital, ASI Jitender Singh
recorded their 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
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) 5370 of 2025 Page 5 of 16
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 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
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) 5370 of 2025 Page 6 of 16
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:
4 (2022) 3 SCC 230.
5 (2022) 9 SCC 269.
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) 5370 of 2025 Page 7 of 16
“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
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.”
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) 5370 of 2025 Page 8 of 16
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 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:
6 (2022) 14 SCC 368.
7 2025 SCC Online SC 518.
8 (2024) 10 SCC 768.
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) 5370 of 2025 Page 9 of 16
“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,
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
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) 5370 of 2025 Page 10 of 16
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 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
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) 5370 of 2025 Page 11 of 16
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)
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
9 (2022) 5 SCC 465.
10 (2023) 13 SCC 549.
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) 5370 of 2025 Page 12 of 16
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 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
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) 5370 of 2025 Page 13 of 16
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
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) 5370 of 2025 Page 14 of 16
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 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
11 (2023) 13 SCC 549.
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) 5370 of 2025 Page 15 of 16
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.
…………………………………..J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
………………………………..….J.
(PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)
August 13, 2025;
New Delhi
Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) 5370 of 2025 Page 16 of 16