Olympic Medallist Sushil Kumar (File)After issuing notice on Thursday in two pleas seeking cancellation of interim bail granted to Olympic wrestler Sushil Kumar by a trial court, the Delhi HC Friday said the case will be considered on merits.
The pleas have been moved against an order of the trial court granting interim bail to Sushil till November 12, in connection with the alleged murder of wrestler Sagar Dhankar. Interim bail was sought for three weeks on humanitarian grounds to facilitate surgery and proper medical treatment of Sushil’s wife, and for taking care of her after surgery.
One of the pleas has been moved by the deceased’s father, Ashok Dhankar, and the other is by one Amit Kumar who claims to be a “victim and prosecution witness”, who was also allegedly beaten by Sushil and other co-accused along with the Sagar, who succumbed to his injuries in May last year.
During the hearing on Friday, Sushil’s counsel sought permission to place on record medical documents pertaining to his wife, and said that “cleverly those have not been placed” before the HC.
On Friday, his counsel submitted before the HC that the wrestler’s wife was admitted to the hospital for surgery on November 7, which was deferred to November 9. However, she was thereafter recommended to a higher centre on Thursday night and the surgery was to take place Friday.
A single judge bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, thereafter, granted two weeks’ time to Sushil’s counsel to file a response to the pleas and said, “you file your reply, we will consider on merits”. He was also allowed to place on record “relevant documents to indicate the medical condition” of his client’s wife.
The HC further recorded the counsel’s submission that his client had “not sought for extension of bail and would surrender after the expiry of the interim bail”, on November 13. The counsel appearing for the state of Delhi sought time to file a status report in the matter, and was granted the same by the HC. The matter is next listed for hearing on December 5.
On November 4, Additional Sessions Judge Shivaji Anand had granted interim bail to Sushil, observing, “It is also not in denial that after surgery, the wife of the applicant/accused will not be in a position to follow normal daily routine and will be dependent on others for a few days.”
“Therefore, keeping in view the medical condition of the wife of the applicant/accused and also considering the fact that there are two minor children, this court is of the view that presence of the applicant/accused will be required,” the court said. Sushil was granted interim bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs 1 lakh with two sureties in the like amount.
The father of the deceased claimed that the trial court did not appreciate that the pain complained by Sushil’s wife in her lower back is not a “life threatening medical condition, hence the instant ground is not sufficient to enlarge” the wrestler on interim bail.
His plea further stated that the ASJ before passing the impugned order had already rejected three interim bail applications of three other co-accused Praveen Dabas, Subhash and Anirudh. The first two had prayed for interim bail on the ground that their wife had to undergo surgery, and the third accused had submitted that his grandmother had to undergo surgery but on the contrary, Sushil, who is the main accused in the case, has been enlarged on interim bail on the same ground, states the plea.
The plea also argues that the trial court has ignored the fact that the present case is at a “very crucial stage wherein material witnesses are yet to be examined”, and that there is every possibility of Sushil “influencing and threatening the witnesses”.
Meanwhile, Amit Kumar’s plea states that the trial court failed to appreciate that Sushils’s wife is the daughter of the renowned wrestler Mahabali Satpal. The plea argues that the trial court ignored replies filed by the investigating officer, opposing the grant of interim bail. It further contends that the trial court did not appreciate the evidence on record, the gravity of the offence and threat perception to the witness while granting interim bail to Sushil.
The trial court had framed charges under various sections of the IPC, including sections 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 120-B (punishment of criminal conspiracy), 142 (being a member of unlawful assembly) and148 (rioting armed with a deadly weapon).