Delhi High Court Denies Bail to Sushil Kumar in Sagar Dhankar Murder Case

The Delhi High Court has rejected the regular bail plea of Olympian wrestler Sushil Kumar in connection with the alleged murder of former junior national wrestling champion Sagar Dhankar in May 2021. Justice Purushaindra Kumar dismissed the bail application in Delhi on August 6, 2026, taking into account serious concerns regarding the case.

The court cited factors including the possibility of Kumar influencing witnesses, his conduct before his arrest, the seriousness of the alleged offence, and his potential to affect the ongoing trial.

In dismissing the application, the court noted that although bail is generally considered the rule and incarceration an exception, the present case involved a "premeditated and gruesome assault resulting in death". The court observed that the prosecution’s case against Kumar was supported by the recovery of a firearm, video footage, and substantial material that was yet to be tested during the trial.

Counsel representing Kumar had pointed out during the proceedings that he had remained in custody for more than five years following his arrest in May 2021. The defence argued that only formal and official witnesses remained to be examined in the trial.

The defence counsel also submitted that the father of the deceased, whose earlier complaint had contributed to a previous cancellation of bail, had not supported the prosecution’s case during his testimony. However, both the Delhi Police and the father of the deceased actively opposed the regular bail application.

The High Court observed that the defence's claim regarding the testimony was itself disputed. The court held that whether the testimony by the father, identified as Ashok Dhankad, ultimately supported or weakened the prosecution’s case was a matter to be assessed by the trial court after considering the evidence as a whole.

The court also relied on earlier observations made by the Supreme Court, which noted that Kumar possessed considerable social standing and influence. The Supreme Court had pointed out that witnesses had allegedly turned hostile on occasions when Kumar had been granted temporary liberty.

The High Court concluded that it was not persuaded that the petitioner had made out a case for a genuine change in circumstances or for the grant of regular bail, stating that the evaluation of evidence must await the final outcome by the trial court.