Liberty is Sacrosanct — But Not at the Cost of Justice: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail in Ashok Dhankad Case

Case Summary 

• Case Name: Ashok Dhankad v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. 

• Citation: 2025 INSC 974 

• Court: Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction 

• Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 3495 of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5370 of 2025) 

• Date of Judgment: 13 August 2025 

• Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra 

Advocates: 

• For the Appellant (Complainant): Mr. Siddharth Mridul, Senior Counsel 

• For the State (Respondent No. 1): Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, Additional Solicitor General 

• For the Accused (Respondent No. 2): Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, Senior Counsel 

Relevant Provisions: 

• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 483 (Bail provisions) 

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 308, 325, 323, 341, 506, 188, 269, 34; Section 302 (added later), Sections 307, 364, 365, 452, 342 

• Arms Act, 1959 – Sections 25, 54, 59; Sections 25(1)(B) and 27(1) 

Key Precedents Cited: 

• Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2005) 2 SCC 42 

• Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40 

• Vinod Bhandari v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2015) 11 SCC 502 

• Jayaben v. Tejas Kanubhai Zala (2022) 3 SCC 230 

• Y v. State of Rajasthan (2022) 9 SCC 269 

• Meena Devi v. State of U.P. (2022) 14 SCC 368 

• State of Rajasthan v. Indraj Singh 2025 SCC Online SC 518 

• Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768 

• Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar (2023) 13 SCC 549 

1. Context and Background 

This Supreme Court judgment in Ashok Dhankad v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. deals with the delicate balance between personal liberty and the societal interest in prosecuting serious crimes. The case arose from a violent incident in May 2021 at Delhi’s Chhatrasal Stadium, involving alleged abduction, brutal assault, and a fatality. Respondent No. 2, Sushil Kumar — a celebrated wrestler and Olympian — was accused along with others of orchestrating and participating in the attack. 

The Delhi High Court, in March 2025, granted him regular bail. This decision was challenged before the Supreme Court by the complainant, supported by the State of NCT of Delhi. 

The Court was thus confronted with a classic bail jurisprudence dilemma: whether the High Court exercised its discretion correctly when granting bail, given the nature and gravity of the accusations. 

2. Judicial Approach to Bail: Conceptual Distinction 

From the outset, Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Karol underscored that “the grant of bail constitutes a discretionary judicial remedy that necessitates a delicate and context-sensitive balancing of competing legal and societal interests.” 

The Court reaffirmed a vital conceptual distinction: 

• Setting aside an order granting bail looks at whether the original order was legally sound, reasonable, and in accordance with established parameters. 

• Cancellation of bail focuses on the accused’s conduct after bail has been granted. 

In Jayaben v. Tejas Kanubhai Zala and Y v. State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court has previously emphasised that the two are “in a different compartment altogether.” The present appeal fell squarely in the first category — an assessment of whether the High Court applied the correct principles at the time of granting bail. 

3. Prosecution Narrative and Evidence 

The prosecution case painted a grim picture: 

• Multiple victims abducted from different parts of Delhi. 

• Transported to Chhatrasal Stadium and assaulted with wooden sticks and firearms. 

• Resultant fatal injuries to one victim, Sagar. 

• Recovery of a bloodstained ‘parna’ from the accused’s vehicle and a loaded firearm from another vehicle at the scene. 

• Video footage retrieved from a co-accused’s mobile phone, with forensic confirmation of no tampering. 

The accused allegedly absconded post-incident, prompting non-bailable warrants and a police reward for his arrest. 

4. Supreme Court’s Critique of the High Court Order 

The Supreme Court found serious infirmities in the High Court’s bail order.  While acknowledging that certain factors — such as prolonged custody and recording of key prosecution testimonies — were relevant, the High Court: 

• Failed to give due weight to the heinous nature of the crime. 

• Overlooked the accused’s abscondence and evasion of arrest. 

• Neglected the possibility of influencing witnesses and the pattern of witnesses turning hostile during the accused’s temporary bail periods. 

The Court observed: 

“The national capital was made into a criminal playground to settle scores, with no regard for the law of the land.” 

This statement underscored the Court’s disapproval of the context in which the alleged acts occurred — a brazen display of lawlessness in a public arena. 

5. Influence and Witness Protection Concerns 

A notable aspect of the Court’s reasoning was the recognition of the accused’s social influence. Drawing from Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar, the Court acknowledged that Sushil Kumar’s celebrity status as an Olympian carries potential “domineering influence” over witnesses. 

Evidence was presented that during earlier temporary bail releases, prosecution witnesses had turned hostile — 28 out of 35 examined so far. Though the Court refrained from making conclusive findings on causation, it held that this pattern “underscores the possibility of interference into the trial by the Accused.” 

6. Legal Principles Reiterated 

The judgment distilled the following guiding principles for appellate scrutiny of bail orders: 

1. Appeals against bail grants differ fundamentally from cancellation proceedings. 

2. Courts must avoid detailed evaluation of evidence at the bail stage. 

3. Bail orders must reflect application of mind to relevant factors: gravity of offence, role of accused, likelihood of absconding, possibility of witness tampering, etc. 

4. Orders may be set aside for perversity, illegality, or failure to consider material facts. 

5. Post-bail conduct is irrelevant in an appeal against grant, but relevant in cancellation proceedings. 

6. Such appeals must not become retaliatory tools. 

These principles align with precedents such as Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, and Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee. 

7. Decision and Directions 

Having found the High Court’s reasoning deficient, the Supreme Court set aside the bail order. It directed the accused to surrender within one week, while allowing the liberty to reapply for bail upon a change in circumstances. Importantly, the Court emphasised that its observations were limited to the bail question and should not prejudice the ongoing trial. 

8. Significance for Indian Bail Jurisprudence 

(a) Reinforcement of Structured Discretion:  The judgment reinforces that bail decisions, particularly in serious offences, must follow a structured analysis rooted in established parameters. This serves as a caution to High Courts against relying solely on factors like custody duration without addressing the full spectrum of considerations. 

(b) Societal Impact Considerations:  By factoring in the accused’s social stature and potential to influence witnesses, the Court recognised that the real-world context of an accused’s influence is a legitimate bail consideration. 

(c) Hostile Witness Pattern as an Indicator:  The Court’s attention to the correlation between temporary bail and witnesses turning hostile provides a nuanced approach — not concluding guilt, but treating such patterns as relevant risk factors for interference. 

(d) Clarification of Appeal vs. Cancellation Grounds:  The reiteration of the distinction helps prevent conflation of legal standards, thereby safeguarding against arbitrary interference in bail matters while ensuring that unjustified bail orders do not stand. 

9. Implications for Legal Practice 

For legal practitioners, especially those in criminal litigation, the judgment offers several takeaways: 

• Drafting Bail Petitions: Defence counsel must anticipate that appellate scrutiny will involve checking whether all relevant factors were considered. 

• Opposing Bail: Prosecutors and complainants can challenge bail on the basis of omitted material considerations without having to prove post-bail misconduct. 

• Judicial Orders: Trial and appellate judges should ensure bail orders explicitly address the gravity of the offence, risk of abscondence, societal impact, and potential to influence witnesses — omission of these may render orders vulnerable. 

• Witness Protection Strategies: The case highlights the importance of implementing robust measures when influential accused persons are on trial. 

10. Highlighted Judicial Observations 

Several quotes from the judgment merit attention for their clarity and jurisprudential weight: 

• “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.” 

• “An appeal against grant of bail must not be allowed to be used as a retaliatory measure… confined only to the grounds discussed above.” 

• “It cannot be doubted that he carries societal impact… it cannot be said that he would have no domineering influence over witnesses or delay the proceedings of trial.” 

These statements encapsulate the Court’s commitment to balancing constitutional freedoms with the imperatives of justice. 

Conclusion 

The Supreme Court’s decision in Ashok Dhankad v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. is a robust reaffirmation of principled bail jurisprudence. It serves as a reminder that while personal liberty is a cornerstone of constitutional democracy, its exercise must be harmonised with the need to preserve the integrity of criminal trials, especially in cases involving grave charges and influential accused persons. 

For India’s legal fraternity, the judgment is both a cautionary note and a guiding template — urging meticulous judicial reasoning in bail matters, vigilance against undue influence, and an unwavering focus on the twin pillars of fairness and justice.