National, May 18, 2021: The Delhi Court dismissed two-time Olympic medallist Sushil Kumar’s anticipatory bail plea in a hearing on Tuesday. Kumar had moved the court claiming that the investigation against him was biased and there is a conspiracy against him to injure his reputation. However, the court rejected his plea and it means the non-bailable warrant issued against him relating to the killing of 23-year-old 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 according to the reports published in insidesport.co.
Chhatrasal Stadium Case: Kumar’s bail application had been 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.
Senior advocate, Sidharth Luthra appeared for Kumar. In the application filed, Kumar stated that the entire investigation was being conducted with “a pre-determined and biased mindset“. It also said he was “innocent of all wrongdoings”.
The court was told that the alleged victims in the case “have criminal antecedents“, and when he asked them to vacate a property that belonged to his wife Savi Kumar, they “tried to falsely implicate” him.
Chhatrasal Stadium Case: The sessions court was further told that firearms recovered from a Scorpio car was not Kumar’s and even the cars which were allegedly found at his place 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, adding he “should not be compelled to face harassment, ignominy and disgrace at the instance of baseless and unfounded allegations.”