Olympic Wrestler Sushil Kumar denied of anticipatory bail in a murder case: Delhi Court

In the murder case of a wrestler, a Delhi court declined to offer anticipatory bail to absconding Olympic medalist Sushil Kumar, claiming that he is prima facie the major conspirator and the charges against him are substantial.

Wrestler Sagar Rana passed away, and two of his associates, Sonu and Amit Kumar, were wounded, since they were allegedly assaulted by Sushil Kumar as well as other wrestlers on May 4 night in the national capital’s stadium premises.

Sushil Kumar, who is accused of murder, abduction, and criminal conspiracy, was deprived relief by a bench headed by Additional Sessions Judge Jadgish Kumar. 

Kumar’s defender, Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra contended that the probe into his case was unfair and that the allegations were made to adversely affect his prestige and that one of the supposed victims has a criminal background.

However, the police’s lawyer, Additional Public Prosecutor Atul Srivastava, informed the court that there is electronic proof of him assaulting the wrestler with a stick.

The judge acknowledged that the accusations against Sushil Kumar is extreme in nature whilst withdrawing his pre-arrest bail. Based on a review of the investigation’s evidence so far, it suggests that the perpetrator is the principal conspirator. Furthermore, the court stated that the statements of eyewitness reports have been verified, and also that the petition is not suitable for anticipatory bail at this time.

In the case of Sushil Kumar, the Delhi Police have initiated an FIR under sections 302 (murder), 308 (culpable homicide), 365 (kidnapping), 325 (causing grievous harm), 323 (voluntarily causing harm), 341 (wrongful restraint), and 506 (wrongful restraint) (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Constitution. His actions have also been documented under the Indian Penal Code’s sections 188 (disobedience to a public servant’s order), 269 (negligent act likely to propagate disease), 120-B (criminal conspiracy), and 34 (common intention), as well as the Arms Act’s numerous sections. 

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *