NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside the Delhi High Court's March 4 order, which granted bail to Olympian wrestler Sushil Kumar in a 2021 murder case, observing that judicial discretion in bail matters must be exercised by a calibrated assessment of the nature and seriousness of the charge.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra said, "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 court highlighted 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 were the factors to be considered in bail matters.
The court noted in the present case, High Court failed to consider the grievous nature of the crime, possibility of accused influencing the trial and his conduct, particularly of abscondence during the investigation.
It allowed an appeal filed by Ashok Dhankad, the father of the deceased Sagar and directed Sushil Kumar to surrender within a week.
The court noted 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, the bench said.
"There can be no doubt that these allegations are shocking and serious in nature,'' the bench said.
This court cannot lose sight of the influence an accused wields in society while considering the grant of bail, the bench said.
"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," the court said.
In such circumstances, the court pointed out, 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, the court pointed out.
The court also underscored state counsel's submission that whenever accused was granted temporary bail, the visible pattern seen was that, the prosecution witness be it for whatever reason, influence or threat, upon examination have turned hostile.
"This pattern underscores the possibility of interference into the trial by the accused. Noticeably, out of 35 witnesses examined, 28 have turned hostile,'' the court said.
While considerations such as the period of custody and testimonies of key prosecution witnesses are relevant, the High 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, the bench said.
The counsel for the accused submitted that he had not misused his liberty on bail.
To this, the court pointed out 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.
Disclaimer: This content is produced and published by LawStreet Journal Media for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The views expressed are independent of any legal practice of the individuals involved.
