Chhatrasal Stadium Case: Sushil Kumar won’t be given anticipatory bail

In a hearing on Tuesday, the Delhi Court rejected two-time Olympic medallist Sushil Kumar’s anticipatory bail application. Kumar had filed a motion in court, alleging that the investigation into his case was skewed and that there was a plot to damage his reputation. The court, however, rejected his appeal, which means that the non-bailable warrant issued against him in connection with the murder of 23-year-old Sagar Rana at Chhatrasal stadium remains in effect.

The Delhi police declared a Rs 1 lakh reward for information leading to the arrest of Sushil Kumar and nine others in connection with the murder of Sagar Rana, a 23-year-old former junior national wrestling champion. His associate Ajay Kumar, a physics instructor, was also given a cash reward of Rs 50,000.

Sonu and Amit Kumar were among the people who endured injuries when Sushil Kumar, along with other wrestlers, allegedly attacked them. Wrestler Sagar Rana could not survive on the night of May 4^th at the Chhatrasal stadium.

Kumar’s bail plea was scheduled to be heard by Additional Sessions, Judge Jagdish Kumar. During the hearing, Public Prosecutor Atul Shrivastava, who was representing Delhi Police, said that Kumar’s passport had not been confiscated. He stated in the court, “We had kept the passport as we feared that he might fly away from the country.”

Sidharth Luthra, a senior lawyer, represented Kumar. Kumar stated in his application that the entire inquiry was conducted with a “pre-determined and biased mindset.” He was also declared “innocent of all wrongdoings,” according to the statement. The alleged victims in the case “have criminal antecedents,” according to what the court was informed. When he demanded them to evacuate a property owned by his wife, Savi Kumar, they “tried to falsely implicate” him.

The application read, “That unfounded, baseless, scurrilous and preposterous allegations have been made against the applicant maliciously with the only motive to humiliate and injure the reputation of the applicant. He should not be compelled to face harassment, ignominy and disgrace at the instance of baseless and unfounded allegations.”