Olympics Begin In
Begin typing your search above and press return to search.


No relief to Olympic medalist Sushil Kumar, court denies anticipatory bail

A Delhi Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to absconding Olympic medalist Sushil Kumar in connection with the Chhatrasal Stadium brawl that led to the death of a wrestler

Sushil Kumar

Sushil Kumar (Source: News 18)



Updated: 23 May 2021 10:42 AM GMT

A Delhi Court on Tuesday refused to grant anticipatory bail to absconding Olympic medalist Sushil Kumar in the murder case of a wrestler, saying that he is prima facie the main conspirator and allegations against him are serious in nature. Additional Sessions Judge Jadgish Kumar denied the relief to Sushil Kumar against whom a case of murder, abduction and criminal conspiracy has been registered.

Wrestler Sagar Dhankar died, while two of his friends Sonu and Amit Kumar got injured, after they were allegedly assaulted by Sushil Kumar and other wrestlers on May 4 night, at the stadium premises in the national capital. While dismissing Sushil Kumar's pre-arrest bail, the judge noted that "the allegations against the accused are serious in nature. From the perusal of record of investigation so far, it reveals that prima facie the accused is the main conspirator".

Further, the judge said "The investigation is still going on and some of the accused persons have not been arrested so far. The NBWS [non-bailable warrant] has already been issued against the accused." The Additional Sessions Judge also relied upon the statements of the eye-witnesses while dismissing the plea and said "So at this stage, the Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the accused". Fearing arrest, the international wrestler moved the Rohini court in Delhi on May 17 seeking anticipatory bail, asserting that the investigation against him is biased and that no injuries are attributable to him.

In the plea, the sportsman showed his willingness to join the investigation and provide a "true and correct picture of the incident" to help the investigating agency reach a logical conclusion. "It appears that the statement of the victims has already been recorded and alleged recoveries have already been made. No custodial investigation is required as nothing is to be recovered at the instance of the applicant," Sushil Kumar''s plea stated. He further claimed to have no connection with the alleged firing that took place during the brawl, adding that the firearm and vehicle found at the place of the incident do not belong to him.

However, Additional Public Prosecutor Atul Srivastava, representing the police, told the court that there is electronic evidence where he could be seen "with a stick and hitting" the wrestler. The Prosecutor also asserted that Sushil's passport has been confiscated to alert the authorities as there is an apprehension that he may flee the country. According to Investigating Officer (IO) Inspector Dinesh Kumar, wrestler's custodial interrogation is required to unearth the chain of conspiracy and recover the weapon of offence from him. "He is the main accused in the whole incident, who has played a key role in the commission of offence.

Data retrieved by FSL experts confirms his active role in commission of crime," the Investigating Officer told the court. Senior advocate Sidharth luthra, representing the accused, told the court that Sonu, present during the brawl, is a history sheeter, member of Kala Jatheria''s gang and has various criminal cases against him. "These people, who I am up against, are criminal-minded people and I will suffer at their hands," Luthra told the court on behalf of Sushil Kumar. Sushil Kumar is on the run since Dhankar's death and the police are making efforts to trace him by conducting raids in the Delhi-NCR region and neighbouring states.

The Delhi Police has filed an FIR in the case under sections 302 (murder), 308 (cupable homicide), 365 (kidnapping), 325 (causing grevious hurt), 323 (voluntarily casuing hurt), 341 (wrongful restraint) and 506 (criminal intimidation). It has also been registered under 188 (Disobedience to order by public servant), 269 (negligent act likely to spread infection of disease), 120-B (criminal conspiracy) and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code and various sections under the Arms Act.

Next Story