Ashok Dhankad v. State NCT of Delhi: What Changed in Bail

Ashok Dhankad v. State NCT of Delhi resets BNSS §483 bail. The Supreme Court, therefore, insists on factor-by-factor reasons—abscondence, gravity, and tampering risk—before granting liberty. Moreover, it clarifies that “setting aside” unreasoned bail differs from “cancellation” for post-grant misconduct. Consequently, thin or boilerplate bail orders are now primed for appellate reversal.

New Delhi (ABC Live): In Ashok Dhankad v. State NCT of Delhi, the Supreme Court set aside a High Court order that granted regular bail to Sushil Kumar. The Court did not retry the case. Instead, it asked if the bail court weighed the right factors and gave reasons. Because it did not, the order fell. As a result, BNSS §483 bail now demands clearer reasoning, stronger risk review, and careful attention to witness safety.

What changed after Ashok Dhankad v. State NCT of Delhi

First, appellate courts can set aside an unreasoned or perverse bail grant even without post-grant misconduct. Next, bail orders must show how the judge assessed abscondence, gravity, and witness-tampering risk. Finally, an accused’s influence may be considered, but only when the record shows real capacity to pressure witnesses.

What exactly courts must record (the factor list)

Gravity and manner of the alleged offence.
Role/overt acts and the prima facie strength of the case.
Abscondence/flight risk (NBWs, reward notices, evasive conduct).
Tampering risk (threat complaints, clustered hostility, proximity).
Stage of trial/delay attribution, plus parity.
Whether strict conditions can neutralise risks (no-contact, geo-fencing, device surrender, area bans, weekly reporting).

Moreover, courts should rely on recoveries, FSL notes, and videos as risk signals, not as findings on guilt. Therefore, no mini-trial is needed at the bail stage.

Why the High Court’s order failed (applied to this case)

The High Court did not deal squarely with abscondence (NBWs and a reward). It under-weighted the heinous manner of the alleged offence (abduction, weapons, a death). It also treated tampering risk too lightly despite threat complaints and a marked hostility pattern. Consequently, the Supreme Court found the order unreasoned and set it aside, while allowing a fresh plea on a change in circumstances.

Practical effects for each stakeholder

Courts: Write factor-by-factor bail orders and explain why proposed conditions do—or do not—control risk.
Prosecution/Police: File a Bail Risk Dossier: NBW/reward chronology, threat complaints, FSL/video integrity notes, recovery memos, and a hostility timeline. Seek witness-protection orders.
Defence: Re-apply when circumstances change: finish material witnesses, prove no-contact, offer geo-fencing/e-monitoring, device surrender, area bans, and weekly reporting. Show delays are not defence-caused.
Victims/Witnesses: Ask for in-camera depositions, controlled transport, and no-contact lists. Thus, pressure can reduce and testimony can improve.

Before vs after: short compare

Before: Short, boilerplate bail orders sometimes survived appeal.
After (Ashok Dhankad v. State NCT of Delhi): Thin reasoning is risky; ignoring abscondence or tampering signals invites reversal.
Before: “High profile” was argued in the abstract.
After: Influence matters only with on-record proof, not status alone.
Before: Long custody often tipped the scale.
After: Gravity + unmitigated risk can outweigh custody unless conditions or circumstances truly change.

Copy-ready pleading blocks

Appellant (to set aside bail):
“The bail order is unreasoned. It ignores (i) abscondence proven by NBWs and a reward, (ii) grave facts including abduction, weapons, and a death, and (iii) tampering risk shown by threat complaints and a hostility pattern. Under BNSS §483, this warrants setting aside.”

Defence (renewed bail):
“Circumstances have changed. Material witnesses are complete; verified no-contact is in place; geo-fencing and device surrender are offered; weekly reporting will occur; and delays are not defence-caused. Therefore, risks are now controlled; please consider conditional liberty.”

Quick reference (link)

Full judgment (open access): Ashok Dhankad v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr. — https://indiankanoon.org/doc/119273439/

Bottom line

Ashok Dhankad v. State NCT of Delhi resets BNSS §483 bail toward clear reasons and credible risk analysis. Therefore, unless a court confronts abscondence, gravity, and tampering risk head-on—and records why release is still safe—its order is primed for set-aside.

Also, Read