Delhi court rejects Sushil Kumar’s anticipatory bail plea

the non-bailable warrant issued against Sushil Kumar for the murder of Sagar Rana at Chhatrasal Stadium stands.

Sushil Kumar claimed there is a conspiracy to malign his image
By Aaryanshi Mohan | May 19, 2021 | 2 Min Read follow icon Follow Us

The Delhi Court rejected two-time Olympic medallist Sushil Kumar’s anticipatory bail plea after Tuesday hearing. Kumar claimed the investigation against him was biased and there was a conspiracy injure his reputation. However, the court rejected his plea. Now the non-bailable warrant issued against him for the murder of Sagar Rana at Chhatrasal Stadium stands.

Failing to apprehend Sushil Kumar and nine others in connection with the murder of a 23-year-old former junior national wrestling champion Sagar Rana, the Dehli police announced a Rs 1 lakh reward for information leading to his arrest. A cash reward of Rs 50,000 was also announced on his associate Ajay Kumar, who is a physics teacher.

Kumar’s bail application was listed for hearing before Additional Sessions Judge Jagdish Kumar. During the hearing, Public prosecutor Atul Shrivastava, appearing for Delhi Police told Delhi Court that Kumar’s passport has not seized. We have not seized his passport. “We had kept the passport as we feared that he might fly away from the country,” he told the court.

Sushil Kumar hearing in court

Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra represented Kumar. In the application filed, Kumar stated that the entire investigation took place with a “a pre-determined and biased mindset”. It also claimed he was “innocent of all wrongdoings”.

The sessions court was further told that firearms recovered from a Scorpio car and the other cars did not belong to him or his family members.

“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,” the application stated.

The application added he “should not be compelled to face harassment. Or ignominy and disgrace at the instance of baseless and unfounded allegations.”