New Delhi, Aug 13 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside an order of bail to Olympic medallist Sushil Kumar in a 2021 murder case of former junior national wrestling champion Sagar Dhankar at the Chhatrasal Stadium in the national capital.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra noted the allegations in the FIR, which said the national capital was made into a "criminal playground" to settle scores with no regard for the law of the land, and directed Kumar to surrender within a week before the court concerned.
The bench was hearing an appeal filed by Dhankar's father against the Delhi High Court's March 4 bail order.
Kumar and others are accused of fatally assaulting Dhankar and injuring his two friends in May 2021 over an alleged property dispute.
"Undoubtedly, the accused (Kumar) 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," the bench said.
The verdict, however, observed his "domineering influence" over witnesses or delaying the trial proceedings cannot be ruled out.
The allegations relating to pressuring witnesses were stated to have been made before the order granting bail was passed and certain witnesses had in writing lodged complaints apprehending threat to their lives at Kumar's behest.
The bench noted after the FIR was lodged, Kumar remained absconding and evaded arrest. He was eventually arrested on May 23, 2021.
"This court must also be cognisant of the seriousness of the allegations against the accused," the bench said.
The top court further noted the accused persons allegedly abducted certain persons, violently attacked them with dangerous weapons and caused grievous injuries resulting in unfortunate death of the victim.
It also came on record via the prosecution that whenever Kumar was granted temporary bail on five occasions, quite clearly prosecution witnesses turned hostile during examination.
"However, at this stage we refrain from affirming seal of approval thereupon. But pertinently, this pattern underscores the possibility of interference into the trial by the accused. Noticeably, out of 35 witnesses examined, 28 have turned hostile," the bench pointed out.
The grant of bail, the top court said, constitutes a discretionary judicial remedy that necessitates a delicate and context-sensitive balancing of competing legal and societal interests.
"On the 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," the bench said.
On the other hand, the order said, the court must remain equally mindful of the gravity of alleged offence, the broader societal implications of the accused's release and the need to preserve the integrity and fairness of 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," it added.
The top court underlined calibrated assessment of nature and seriousness of charge; strength of prima facie case; flight risk or tampering with evidence or witnesses besides the "overarching interest" to ensure the trial is not hampered or prejudiced to be factored in while exercising judicial discretion in bail cases.
Referring to the verdicts on the issue, the bench noted an appeal against grant of bail cannot be considered to be on the same footing as an application for cancellation of bail.
It said an appeal against grant of bail may be entertained by a superior court on the grounds of perversity, illegality, inconsistency with law and relevant factors not considered.
The bench said the court may not take the conduct of an accused subsequent to grant of bail into consideration while considering an appeal against grant of relief.
"An appeal against grant of bail must not be allowed to be used as a retaliatory measure," it added.
The high court was, therefore, held to have "erroneously" granted bail to Kumar by not considering the grievous nature of crime, possibility of influencing trial by accused and his conduct during investigation.
The top court went on to clarify its observations were only meant for examining the order granting bail and should not be construed as remarks on the merits of matter and said it would be open for Kumar to apply for bail afresh, with change in circumstances.
The trial court in October 2022 framed charges, including murder, under IPC against Kumar aside from the Arms Act, among other provisions.