Sourab Rawat vs State (Nct Of Delhi)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Reserved on: 13 October, 2026
th
Pronounced on: 17 October, 2026
th
Uploaded on: 17 October, 2026

# CNR No. DLHC010356772026
+ BAIL APPLN. 3138/2026 & CRL.M.A. 23679/2026
SOURAB RAWAT .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sandeep Mishra, Mr. Surbhit
Nandan, Mr. Ayush Vardhan, Mr.
Ayush Sharma, Advocates.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP for
the State with Mr. Narender Kumar,
Advocate along with Insp. Rakesh
Kumar, PS Tughak Road.
Ms. Pallavi Garg, Advocate
(DHCLSC) with Ms. Prakriti,
Advocate for Complainant.

# CNR No. DLHC010366052026
+ BAIL APPLN. 3215/2026
ANKIT KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Shruti Pandey, Advocate.
versus
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP for
the State with Mr. Narender Kumar,
Advocate along with Insp. Rakesh
Kumar, PS Tughak Road.
Ms. Pallavi Garg, Advocate
(DHCLSC) with Ms. Prakriti,
Advocate for Complainant.

Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:50:42
BAIL APPLN. 2655/2026 & connected matters Page 1 of 13

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
JUDGMENT

SANJEEV NARULA, J.:
1. These applications under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
1
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , arise from FIR No. 53/2023, initially registered
2
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station
Tughlak Road. Upon completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was
filed for offences under Sections 302, 120-B and 34 of the IPC and Section
3
27 of the Arms Act, 1959 . The Applicants, Sourab Rawat and Ankit
Kumar, seek regular bail in connection with the same incident. Their earlier
th
applications were dismissed by the Sessions Court, most recently on 13
July, 2026. Since the prosecution case and the evidence relied upon are
substantially common, the applications are being decided together.
2. The prosecution case concerns the murder of Akash, aged about 19
th
years, near Khan Market on 16 April, 2023. According to the prosecution,
longstanding hostility existed between two groups, one of which included
the deceased. Following an earlier altercation, the accused allegedly
conspired to attack members of the rival group. On the evening of the
incident, several persons assembled near Sujan Singh Park and proceeded
towards Khan Market, where Akash was assaulted and stabbed. He was
taken to RML Hospital and declared brought dead. The post-mortem
examination attributes his death to shock and haemorrhage resulting from
multiple ante-mortem stab injuries.

1
“BNSS”
2
“IPC”
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:50:42
BAIL APPLN. 2655/2026 & connected matters Page 2 of 13

3. The prosecution alleges that both Applicants participated in the
planned attack. Sourab Rawat is alleged to have carried a knife and
physically assaulted the deceased, while Ankit Kumar is also alleged to have
been armed and participated in the assault. Their involvement is sought to be
established through the alleged prior conspiracy, CCTV footage showing the
movement of the group, call detail records and recoveries. The prosecution
also relies upon an oral dying declaration allegedly made by Akash while
being taken to hospital, in which he is stated to have said that Karan Rai,
Vishal @ Gabru and Raunak, along with their associates, had assaulted him.
4. Counsel appearing for Sourab Rawat submits that the prosecution has
failed to establish any specific act connecting the Applicant with the fatal
assault. It is pointed out that the alleged oral dying declaration names Karan
Rai, Vishal @ Gabru and Raunak, along with certain unidentified associates,
but does not name Sourab. The allegation that he slapped the deceased and
carried a knife is disputed. None of the independent witnesses examined so
far has identified him as having inflicted any injury. PW-4 Mohd. Saleem,
who claims to have witnessed the assault, has been unable to identify the
assailants, while PW-3, PW-5 and PW-6 have not identified the Applicant as
a participant in the incident. Counsel submits that the CCTV footage,
although relied upon to establish his presence with the group, does not
capture the actual assault or any overt act attributed to him. It is further
pointed out that PW-1 Raja admitted in his cross-examination that he did not
know Sourab Rawat prior to the incident and that neither he nor his brother
had lodged any prior complaint against Sourab with the police. The alleged
recovery of a knife, stated to have been kept in the scooty of co-accused

3
“Arms Act”
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:50:42
BAIL APPLN. 2655/2026 & connected matters Page 3 of 13

Vishal @ Gabru, is also questioned insofar as it is sought to establish his
participation in the stabbing. It is further pointed out that no charge under
Section 27 of the Arms Act was framed against him. Counsel submits that
the allegation of common intention or conspiracy cannot dispense with the
requirement of establishing the Applicant’s participation through evidence.
He further relies upon Sourab’s young age, lack of criminal antecedents,
satisfactory jail conduct and permanent residence in Delhi.
5. Counsel appearing for Ankit Kumar submits that his case stands on an
even more distinct footing. He is not named in the alleged dying declaration,
and PW-2 HC Amit has expressly acknowledged in cross-examination that
the deceased did not disclose Ankit’s name while being taken to hospital.
The prosecution relies upon his identification by PW-1 Raja in the CCTV
footage, although PW-1 admittedly had never met Ankit before the incident.
It is submitted that the identification is disputed, particularly since the
person shown in the footage is partly covered and the identification is stated
to rest substantially upon his clothing. The footage itself does not depict the
assault. None of the independent witnesses examined so far has identified
Ankit as having inflicted any injury upon the deceased. Counsel further
submits that no weapon used in the fatal assault has been recovered at his
instance, no charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act was framed against
him, and the forensic material does not disclose any incriminating biological
evidence connecting him with the stabbing. As regards the earlier video
relied upon by the State, counsel contends that it dates back to January 2023
and that neither the context of the conversation nor its connection with the
present occurrence has been established. The mere use of threatening
language, without examining the circumstances in which it was allegedly
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:50:42
BAIL APPLN. 2655/2026 & connected matters Page 4 of 13

spoken, cannot by itself establish participation in the alleged conspiracy.
Counsel also emphasises that Ankit has no criminal antecedents, has an
established family residence in Delhi and has been granted interim bail on
several occasions for examinations and medical treatment, without any
reported misuse of liberty.
6. Counsel for both Applicants further submit that the investigation
stands completed, the chargesheet and supplementary chargesheet have been
filed, and the documentary, electronic and physical evidence relied upon by
the prosecution has already been secured. The Applicants have undergone
more than three years of incarceration, whereas only a small proportion of
the 58 cited prosecution witnesses has been examined. The trial is therefore
unlikely to conclude shortly. It is urged that the Applicants cannot be
detained indefinitely merely on account of the gravity of the charge,
particularly when the evidence concerning their individual roles remains to
be tested. Both have established residential and family ties in Delhi, and
there is no material indicating that either has attempted to evade the
proceedings or interfere with witnesses. The apprehension of intimidation
expressed by the prosecution is stated to be speculative and capable of being
addressed through appropriate conditions. Counsel accordingly submit that
their continued detention is unnecessary and seek their release on regular
bail.
7. The State, supported by counsel for the Complainant, oppose both
applications. It is submitted that the deceased was murdered in a planned
attack arising from an existing rivalry between two groups and that both
Applicants actively participated in its execution. The prosecution relies upon
the CCTV footage showing the accused assembling near Sujan Singh Park,
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:50:42
BAIL APPLN. 2655/2026 & connected matters Page 5 of 13

proceeding towards Khan Market and fleeing from the vicinity after the
incident. It is pointed out that PW-1 Raja has identified both Applicants in
the footage played before the Trial Court. The State also relies upon the call
detail records, which, according to the investigation, place the Applicants in
the vicinity at the relevant time, and the testimony of PW-4 Mohd. Saleem
concerning the assault by a group of persons. As regards Sourab Rawat, the
prosecution attributes to him the act of slapping the deceased and carrying a
knife, which is alleged to have been subsequently recovered from the scooty
of co-accused Vishal @ Gabru.
8. In Ankit Kumar’s case, reliance is placed upon his alleged possession
st
of a knife and, more particularly, a video recording dated 1 January, 2023,
in which he is stated to have made threats of murder against members of the
Khan Market group. According to the State, this material lends support to
the allegations of prior hostility, preparation and conspiracy. It is further
submitted that witnesses Gaurav, Saurav Kumar and Kamal Kishore, whose
statements are relied upon to establish the motive and prior conspiracy, are
yet to be examined. It is contended that the Applicants’ roles cannot be
viewed in isolation or their liability determined merely by identifying the
persons who inflicted the stab injuries, since the prosecution alleges that the
offence was committed pursuant to a common intention and criminal
conspiracy. The State and the Complainant also express apprehension that,
given the previous hostility between the groups, release of the Applicants at
this stage may result in intimidation or influence of the remaining witnesses.
They accordingly oppose the grant of bail notwithstanding the period
already spent by the Applicants in custody.
9. The Court has considered the rival submissions and examined the
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:50:42
BAIL APPLN. 2655/2026 & connected matters Page 6 of 13

material placed on record, including the testimony recorded during trial. The
allegations concern the murder of a young man in what the prosecution
describes as a planned attack by several persons acting together. The
seriousness of the offence, the alleged participation of the Applicants, the
material supporting the accusation and the possibility of interference with
witnesses are all important considerations. The Court must also consider
their antecedents, conduct, period of custody and the progress of trial. This
exercise requires an assessment of the prima facie material, without
undertaking a detailed appreciation of the evidence or determining the
credibility of witnesses. The Court is mindful of the caution reiterated by the
4
Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan that material
circumstances bearing upon the accused’s participation and the risk to a fair
trial cannot be overlooked while exercising discretion in a case involving
serious offences.
10. The prosecution relies upon the alleged oral dying declaration made
by Akash while being taken to hospital. PW-1 Raja and PW-2 HC Amit
have deposed that the deceased stated that Karan Rai, Vishal @ Gabru and
Raunak, along with their associates, had assaulted him. The declaration is
undoubtedly relevant to the prosecution case. What assumes significance for
the present applications, however, is that neither Sourab Rawat nor Ankit
Kumar was individually named. PW-2 has also expressly acknowledged in
cross-examination that Ankit’s name was not disclosed by the deceased.
This does not exclude the possibility of their participation, particularly since
the declaration refers to other associates. Equally, it cannot, by itself, be
treated as a specific identification of either Applicant. Their alleged

4
2025 INSC 979
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:50:42
BAIL APPLN. 2655/2026 & connected matters Page 7 of 13

involvement must therefore be considered with reference to the remaining
material collected by the prosecution. No finding concerning the reliability
of the declaration is necessary for deciding these applications.
11. The testimony of the witnesses examined so far also requires
consideration in this context. PW-3 Vinod Kumar and PW-5 Imran have
spoken about hearing a commotion and seeing several persons running from
the vicinity, but neither witnessed the actual assault or identified the
assailants. PW-6 Brijesh Shukla has not supported the prosecution’s account
of his having witnessed the incident and has not identified any accused. PW-
4 Mohd. Saleem has described seeing a group assault upon the deceased,
including a stabbing by a person whose face was muffled. His evidence
supports the occurrence of the assault, but he has stated that he did not
personally know the assailants and could not identify them from the CCTV
footage. Thus, although there is evidence of a violent group assault, the
independent witnesses examined so far have not identified either Applicant
as having personally assaulted or stabbed the deceased.
12. The CCTV footage and electronic evidence relied upon by the
prosecution form an important part of its case regarding the Applicants’
participation in the incident. PW-1 Raja has identified both Applicants in the
footage played before the Trial Court. However, he has stated that he did not
know Sourab Rawat and had not met Ankit Kumar prior to the incident. The
circumstances in which he identified them in the footage, and the
evidentiary value of such identification, are matters to be examined at trial.
13. The chargesheet describes footage showing the accused proceeding
towards Khan Market, pursuing the deceased and subsequently leaving the
vicinity. It also records the investigating agency’s interpretation that Sourab
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:50:42
BAIL APPLN. 2655/2026 & connected matters Page 8 of 13

was seen taking a knife from his pocket while running after the deceased.
The call detail records are relied upon to establish the Applicants’ presence
in the area and communications between members of the group. This
material lends support to the prosecution’s allegation of concerted action,
although the precise roles of the Applicants and the inferences to be drawn
from the footage and electronic records remain matters for trial.
14. As regards Sourab Rawat, the prosecution attributes to him an active
role in the incident. He is alleged to have struck the deceased, carried a knife
and participated in the pursuit along with the other accused. The State also
refers to a knife allegedly kept in the scooty of co-accused Vishal @ Gabru
and subsequently recovered. These allegations are material and have not
been overlooked. At the same time, Sourab is not specifically named in the
alleged dying declaration, and none of the independent witnesses examined
so far has identified him as having inflicted any injury. Although the
prosecution relies upon his alleged possession of a knife, no charge under
the Arms Act has been framed against him. The nature of his participation
and the evidentiary significance of the recovery must be determined at trial.
Sourab has been in custody since April 2023. His nominal roll records no
previous conviction or pending criminal case, and his conduct in custody is
satisfactory. He has an identified residence and family ties in Delhi. These
circumstances, considered with the evidence presently available and the
progress of trial, are relevant to the necessity of his continued detention.
15. Ankit Kumar’s case requires separate consideration. The prosecution
alleges that he was armed and participated in the group which pursued the
deceased. Apart from the CCTV footage and call detail records, the State
st
places particular reliance upon a video recording dated 1 January, 2023, in
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:50:42
BAIL APPLN. 2655/2026 & connected matters Page 9 of 13

which Ankit and a co-accused are allegedly seen making threats against
members of the Khan Market group. The video is relevant to the
prosecution’s allegation of prior hostility and cannot be dismissed as
inconsequential. Its context and connection with the subsequent murder,
however, remain matters for trial. Ankit is not specifically named in the
alleged dying declaration, and PW-2 has expressly confirmed that the
deceased did not disclose his name. None of the independent witnesses
examined so far has identified him as having inflicted an injury. No charge
under the Arms Act was framed against him. The supplementary forensic
material records the deceased’s blood on articles associated with co-accused
Vishal @ Gabru, but does not disclose a comparable biological finding
directly connecting Ankit with the deceased’s injuries. Ankit has no reported
criminal antecedents, was pursuing his education at the time of his arrest and
has an established family residence in Delhi. Importantly, he has been
released on interim bail on several occasions for examinations and medical
treatment and has surrendered as directed, without any reported misuse of
liberty.
16. The Court has also considered the prosecution’s reliance upon
Sections 34 and 120-B IPC. Where common intention or conspiracy is
established, criminal liability does not depend upon the accused having
personally inflicted the fatal injury. The allegations against the Applicants
must therefore be viewed in the context of the prosecution case concerning
the conduct of the group as a whole. The State has also referred to the
statements of Gaurav, Saurav Kumar and Kamal Kishore concerning the
earlier hostility and alleged conspiracy. These witnesses are yet to be
examined. Their evidence, together with the CCTV footage, electronic
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:50:42
BAIL APPLN. 2655/2026 & connected matters Page 10 of 13

records and recoveries, will have to be considered by the Trial Court in
determining whether the Applicants shared the alleged common intention or
participated in the conspiracy. For the present purpose, the Court has
considered this material without attempting to resolve the disputed questions
arising from it.
17. The period of custody and the progress of trial acquire significance in
these circumstances. Both Applicants have remained incarcerated for more
than three years. Charges were framed in April 2024, and the prosecution
has cited 58 witnesses. The material placed before the Court shows that only
a small fraction of these witnesses has been examined, and substantial
evidence, including that concerning the alleged conspiracy, remains to be
recorded. There is consequently no reasonable indication that the trial will
conclude shortly. The Court recognises that neither prolonged custody nor
the anticipated duration of trial can, by itself, justify bail in a prosecution for
murder. Here, however, the delay is not merely a matter of conjecture. The
trial has remained pending for a considerable period after the framing of
charges, while both Applicants have already undergone substantial
incarceration. The significance of that period must be assessed alongside
their respective roles, the evidence recorded so far and their individual
circumstances.
18. The apprehension of interference with witnesses has also been
considered. The prosecution alleges an existing rivalry between the groups,
and several witnesses concerning motive and conspiracy remain to be
examined. The concern expressed by the State and the Complainant cannot,
therefore, be dismissed lightly. Nevertheless, no specific instance of either
Applicant having attempted to influence or intimidate a witness has been
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:50:42
BAIL APPLN. 2655/2026 & connected matters Page 11 of 13

brought to the Court’s attention. Ankit’s compliance with the conditions
imposed during his earlier periods of interim bail is particularly relevant in
this regard. Both Applicants have identified residences and family ties in
Delhi and no reported criminal antecedents. The principal documentary,
electronic and physical evidence has already been secured. In these
circumstances, the Court considers that the apprehensions concerning their
release can reasonably be addressed through appropriate conditions.
19. Having considered the allegations and the material relied upon by the
prosecution, including the CCTV footage, call detail records, recoveries and
the evidence concerning prior hostility, the Court finds that the continued
detention of these Applicants is not necessary to secure the purposes of the
proceedings. The risks associated with their release can be addressed
through appropriate conditions.
20. This conclusion does not rest upon any finding that the prosecution
case is weak, that the Applicants were not members of the alleged group, or
that common intention or conspiracy cannot ultimately be established
against them. Those questions remain for trial. The Court has only assessed
whether, in the circumstances presently obtaining, their continued
incarceration is warranted pending determination of guilt. The applications
are accordingly liable to be allowed, subject to stringent conditions
protecting the prosecution witnesses and the fairness of trial.
21. Accordingly, the applications are allowed. The Applicants, Sourab
Rawat and Ankit Kumar, are directed to be released on regular bail upon
furnishing personal bonds in the sum of ₹25,000/- each, with two sureties
each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court,
subject to the following conditions:
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:50:42
BAIL APPLN. 2655/2026 & connected matters Page 12 of 13

(i) The Applicants shall appear before the Trial Court on every date of
hearing unless exempted.
(ii) They shall not directly or indirectly contact, threaten, influence or
induce any prosecution witness, including members of the deceased’s
family.
(iii) They shall appear before the Investigating Officer at the concerned
police station on the first Monday of every month. However, he shall not be
made to wait for more than two hours for this purpose.
(iv) They shall furnish their current residential addresses and mobile
numbers to the Investigating Officer and shall intimate any change in these
particulars in advance.
(v) They shall not leave India without prior permission of the Trial Court.
(vi) They shall not engage in any activity intended to obstruct the trial or
tamper with evidence.
22. In the event of any violation of these conditions, the State shall be at
liberty to seek cancellation of bail in accordance with law.
23. It is clarified that the observations made herein are tentative and
confined to consideration of the present applications. The Trial Court shall
decide the matter independently on the evidence led before it, uninfluenced
by these observations. The grant of bail to the Applicants shall not, by itself,
determine the entitlement of any other accused, whose application, if filed,
shall be considered on its own facts and circumstances.
24. The applications stand disposed of accordingly.

SANJEEV NARULA, J
OCTOBER 16, 2026 /ab
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
17:50:42
BAIL APPLN. 2655/2026 & connected matters Page 13 of 13