Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Bail Order In Heinous Stadium Attack Case

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra heard an appeal by the complainant, Ashok Dhankad, challenging the judgment and order dated 4 March 2025 of the High Court of Delhi which had enlarged the accused on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with FIR No. 218/2021. The appeal arose from a bail order in proceedings arising out of alleged violent incidents at Chhatrasal Stadium and related offences under the IPC and the Arms Act.

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's bail order, observing that the High Court had failed to apply the relevant parameters for grant of bail in a case of grave violence and had not adequately considered the accused's conduct and influence or the possibility of interference with trial. The Bench directed the accused to surrender before the trial court within one week and recorded that it would be open to him to apply afresh for bail on the basis of a change in circumstances. The Court emphasised that "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, in its reasoning, observed: “The principles which emerge as a result of the above discussion are as follows: (i) An appeal against grant of bail cannot be considered to be on the same footing as an application for cancellation of bail; (ii) The Court concerned must not venture into a threadbare analysis of the evidence adduced by prosecution. The merits of such evidence must not be adjudicated at the stage of bail; (iii) An order granting bail must reflect application of mind and assessment of the relevant factors for grant of bail that have been elucidated by this Court. [See: Y v. State of Rajasthan (Supra); Jaibunisha v. Meherban & Ors and Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu]; (iv) An appeal against grant of bail may be entertained by a superior Court on grounds such as perversity; illegality; inconsistency with law; relevant factors not been taken into consideration including gravity of the offence and impact of the crime; (v) However, the Court may not take the conduct of an accused subsequent to the grant bail into consideration while considering an appeal against the grant of such bail. Such grounds must be taken in an application for cancellation of bail; and (vi) An appeal against grant of bail must not be allowed to be used as a retaliatory measure. Such an appeal must be confined only to the grounds discussed above.”

Background The prosecution alleged that on the intervening night of 4–5 May 2021 the accused and his associates abducted and brutally assaulted several persons near Chhatrasal Stadium, New Delhi, using wooden lathis and a firearm; one injured person, Sagar, later died and his post-mortem recorded "cerebral damage as a result of blunt force/object impact." Investigating officers recovered blood-stained material from a vehicle registered to the accused, a loaded double-barrel gun with live cartridges from associated vehicles, and sticks; a video recording on a co-accused's mobile allegedly depicted the attack and an FSL report found "no sign of edit/adulteration/tampering" in the file. The accused remained absconding after the FIR, non-bailable warrants were issued and a police reward was declared; he was arrested on 23 May 2021. Trial proceeded with charges under Sections 302, 307, 308, 364, 365, 452, 323, 342 and other IPC provisions and provisions of the Arms Act; as of the Supreme Court hearing 35 of 189 witnesses had been examined and 28 of those witnesses had turned hostile. The accused was described in the record as a celebrated wrestler and Olympian, a fact the Court said could not be ignored when assessing possible influence over witnesses. The High Court had granted regular bail; the Supreme Court found the order unsustainable for not applying the relevant factors and for ignoring the gravity and societal impact of the offences. The appeal was allowed, the bail order was set aside, the accused was directed to surrender within one week, and liberty was given to seek fresh bail on change of circumstances. Pending applications were disposed of.

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 3495 of 2025 (2025 INSC 974; SLP (Crl.) No. 5370 of 2025) Case Title: Ashok Dhankad v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Siddharth Mridul, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, Additional Solicitor General (for State of NCT of Delhi); Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, Senior Counsel (for the accused)