Chhatrasal case: Police seeks 12 days custody of Olympic medallist Sushil

Topics Sushil Kumar | Olympics

File photo: Sushil Kumar

The Delhi Police on Sunday sought a 12-day custody of two-time Olympic medallist wrestler Sushil Kumar to question him over his alleged involvement in the death of a 23-year-old wrestler at Chhatrasal Stadium.

Metropolitan Magistrate Divya Malhotra reserved the order on the police remand application. Kumar was physically produced before the court, following which the police was allowed to interrogate him for 30 minutes.

During the proceedings, Additional Public Prosecutor Atul Shrivastava told the court that Kumar's interrogation is required to know the motive behind the crime and recover the weapon used in the murder and the clothes he was wearing during the incident.

The camera at the stadium was dismantled and he took away the DDR of the place. This has to be recovered, the prosecutor told the court, seeking Kumar's custody.

According to the Delhi Police, Sushil Kumar and his associates allegedly assaulted fellow wrestler Sagar Dhankar and two of his friends Sonu and Amit Kumar at the stadium on May 4 night. Sagar succumbed to the injuries later.

The absconding international wrestler was arrested, along with co-accused Ajay, on Sunday from outer Delhi's Mundka area.

Kumar had been on the run for nearly 20 days and attempted to secure pre-arrest bail by claiming that the probe against him is biased.

Police said that they have electronic evidence where he could be seen hitting the wrestler with a stick.

On May 18, the district court rejected his anticipatory bail application, noting that he was prima facie the main conspirator in the case and that allegations against him were serious.

The Delhi Police filed an FIR in the case under sections 302 (murder), 308 (culpable homicide), 365 (kidnapping), 325 (causing grievous hurt), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 341 (wrongful restraint) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

It was also booked him under sections 188 (Disobedience to order by public servant), 269 (negligent act likely to spread infection of disease), 120-B (criminal conspiracy) and 34 (common intention) of the IPC and various sections under the Arms Act.


(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)


Dear Reader,


Business Standard has always strived hard to provide up-to-date information and commentary on developments that are of interest to you and have wider political and economic implications for the country and the world. Your encouragement and constant feedback on how to improve our offering have only made our resolve and commitment to these ideals stronger. Even during these difficult times arising out of Covid-19, we continue to remain committed to keeping you informed and updated with credible news, authoritative views and incisive commentary on topical issues of relevance.

We, however, have a request.

As we battle the economic impact of the pandemic, we need your support even more, so that we can continue to offer you more quality content. Our subscription model has seen an encouraging response from many of you, who have subscribed to our online content. More subscription to our online content can only help us achieve the goals of offering you even better and more relevant content. We believe in free, fair and credible journalism. Your support through more subscriptions can help us practise the journalism to which we are committed.

Support quality journalism and subscribe to Business Standard.

Digital Editor

Business Standard is now on Telegram.
For insightful reports and views on business, markets, politics and other issues, subscribe to our official Telegram channel