Karan Rai 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. DLHC010296942026
+ BAIL APPLN. 2655/2026
KARAN RAI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Prashant Mendiratta, Ms. Aditi
Chaudhary, Mr. Aayush Mitruksha,
Mr. L. Shively, Ms. Lisa Mishra, Ms.
Sakshi Jain, Ms. Vaidhi, 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.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
JUDGMENT

SANJEEV NARULA, J.:
1. The Applicant, Karan Rai, seeks regular bail under Section 483 of the
1
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in FIR No. 53/2023, registered
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at P.S. Tughlak Road. Upon
completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the Applicant

1
“BNSS”
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:16:34
BAIL APPLN. 2655/2026 Page 1 of 8

for offences under Sections 302, 120-B and 34 of the IPC and Section 27 of
2
the Arms Act, 1959 . His earlier applications for regular bail were dismissed
st st
by the Sessions Court on 1 October, 2024 and 1 June, 2026. An application
th
preferred before this Court was withdrawn on 19 February, 2025, with
liberty to approach the Court again.
th
2. The prosecution case arises from an incident on 16 April, 2023, near
Khan Market, in which Akash, aged about 19 years, sustained multiple stab
injuries and was subsequently declared brought dead at RML Hospital.
According to the prosecution, the incident arose from longstanding hostility
between two groups. Following an earlier altercation, the accused allegedly
planned 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 the deceased was assaulted and stabbed. The Applicant
is alleged to have participated in planning the attack, thrown a brick towards
the deceased and restrained him during the assault, thereby facilitating the acts
of the other assailants.
3. Mr. Prashant Mendiratta, counsel appearing for the Applicant, submits
th
that the Applicant has been in custody since 17 April, 2023, and that his
continued incarceration is unwarranted, particularly when the trial has made
little progress. He submits that no stab injury is attributed to the Applicant and
no weapon of offence has been recovered from him. The allegation that he
threw a brick towards the deceased or restrained him during the assault is
disputed, and the CCTV footage relied upon by the prosecution does not
capture the actual incident. He submits that the footage merely depicts the

2
“Arms Act”
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:16:34
BAIL APPLN. 2655/2026 Page 2 of 8

movement of several persons in the vicinity and does not establish the
Applicant’s participation in the assault or any common intention to commit
murder. The allegation of conspiracy is also questioned, particularly insofar
as it is sought to be founded upon disclosure statements of the accused.
4. Counsel further submits that the prosecution case rests substantially
upon an alleged oral dying declaration made by the deceased while being
taken to hospital in an auto-rickshaw. He questions its reliability, pointing out
that the deceased was stated to be semi-conscious when removed from the
spot and that the names of the alleged assailants do not appear in the FIR or
the hospital record. Neither the registration number of the auto-rickshaw nor
the particulars of its driver were recorded, and the driver has not been
examined. Counsel further points out that the clothes of PW-1 Raja and PW-
2 HC Amit were not seized during the investigation. PW-2 specifically stated
in his cross-examination that his clothes were not stained with blood while he
was assisting in lifting the injured and taking him to the hospital. These
circumstances are also relied upon to question the surrounding circumstances
in which the alleged oral dying declaration is stated to have been made.
5. Mr. Mendiratta further submits that PW-1 Raja admittedly did not
disclose the names of the accused to the investigating officer at the hospital,
while PW-2 HC Amit acknowledged that he neither recorded the names
allegedly disclosed by the deceased nor conveyed that information to the
attending doctor. He also draws attention to PW-1’s admission that, two days
after the incident, the deceased’s family gave an interview to ABP News in
his presence, attributing the murder to one Abhishek following an earlier
dispute. It is submitted that these circumstances raise substantial questions
concerning the alleged declaration, which cannot be overlooked merely
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:16:34
BAIL APPLN. 2655/2026 Page 3 of 8

because PW-1 and PW-2 have supported it in their testimony.
6. Mr. Mendiratta also refers to the depositions of PW-3 to PW-6. He
submits that PW-3 Vinod Kumar and PW-5 Imran did not witness the assault
or identify the assailants, PW-6 Brijesh Shukla has not supported the
prosecution’s account, and PW-4 Mohd. Saleem, although claiming to have
witnessed the stabbing, could not identify the assailants. None of these
witnesses has attributed any act of assault to the Applicant. It is further
submitted that the investigation stands completed, the chargesheet and
supplementary chargesheet have been filed, and the material evidence has
already been secured. Of the 58 prosecution witnesses cited, only a small
number have been examined, making an early conclusion of trial unlikely.
The Applicant is a permanent resident of Delhi, has family ties in the city and
is pursuing his graduation. He was earlier released on interim bail for his
examinations and surrendered within the stipulated period without any
allegation of interference with witnesses or misuse of liberty. Counsel submits
that the apprehension of witness intimidation is unsupported by any specific
incident and that appropriate conditions would adequately secure the
Applicant’s presence and the fairness of trial. Relying upon the presumption
of innocence, the right to speedy trial under Article 21 and the decisions cited
in the application and before the Sessions Court, he urges that further
detention would serve no useful purpose.
7. Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP for the State, supported by Ms.
Pallavi Garg, counsel for the Complainant, opposes the application. It is
submitted that the incident was a planned attack arising from an existing
rivalry and that the Applicant played an active role in its execution. Particular
reliance is placed upon the testimony of PW-1 Raja and PW-2 HC Amit, both
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:16:34
BAIL APPLN. 2655/2026 Page 4 of 8

of whom have deposed that the deceased specifically named Karan Rai,
Vishal @ Gabru, the child in conflict with law and their associates while being
taken to hospital. It is further pointed out that PW-1 has identified the
Applicant in the CCTV footage played during trial. The prosecution also
relies upon footage from the vicinity of Gopal Mandir, showing the movement
of the group towards the place of occurrence and its departure thereafter, and
attributes a leading role to the Applicant. Reference is made to call detail
records, the alleged prior conspiracy and an earlier FIR under Section 324 IPC
against him. The State apprehends that his release may result in intimidation
of witnesses, particularly those concerning the alleged conspiracy who are yet
to be examined.
8. The Court has considered the rival submissions and examined the
material placed on record. The allegations concern the death of a young man
in what the prosecution describes as a planned attack by several persons acting
together. In considering an application for bail in a case of this nature, the
Court must assess the gravity of the accusation, the prima facie material
connecting the Applicant with the offence, his antecedents, the possibility of
interference with witnesses and the likely duration of trial. This assessment
does not call for a detailed examination of the evidence or a determination of
its ultimate reliability. At the same time, the seriousness of the offence, by
itself, cannot justify continued detention.
9. In the present case, the material relied upon by the prosecution is not
confined to the Applicant’s alleged presence near the place of occurrence.
PW-1 Raja and PW-2 HC Amit have both deposed that the deceased
specifically named Karan Rai, along with other persons, while being taken to
hospital. Despite cross-examination, both witnesses have maintained that the
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:16:34
BAIL APPLN. 2655/2026 Page 5 of 8

deceased made such a disclosure. PW-1 has also identified the Applicant in
the CCTV footage played before the Trial Court. Although the footage, as per
the prosecution, does not capture the actual assault, it is relied upon to
establish the movement of the Applicant with the group towards the place of
occurrence and their departure thereafter. The Applicant is also alleged to
have participated in planning the attack, thrown a brick towards the deceased
and restrained him while the other assailants inflicted injuries. These
circumstances must be considered together, rather than in isolation.
10. The Court has also considered the submissions questioning the
reliability of the alleged dying declaration. The omission of the assailants’
names from the earliest police and hospital records, the absence of particulars
of the auto-rickshaw and its driver, PW-1’s admission that he did not disclose
the names to the investigating officer at the hospital, and PW-2’s admission
that he neither recorded the names nor conveyed the deceased’s disclosure to
the attending doctor, are matters which require examination. The
circumstances surrounding the subsequent televised interview, in which the
deceased’s family attributed the murder to another person, also warrant
scrutiny. These circumstances are not inconsequential. Nevertheless, an oral
dying declaration is not rendered inadmissible merely because it was not
recorded by a doctor or reproduced in the contemporaneous records. Whether
the declaration was made in the manner alleged, and the weight to be attached
to it in the light of the omissions and inconsistencies brought out in cross-
examination, are questions for trial. At this stage, the Court cannot disregard
the testimony of two witnesses who specifically claim to have heard the
deceased identify the Applicant, particularly when the prosecution also relies
upon other material concerning his movements and alleged participation in
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:16:34
BAIL APPLN. 2655/2026 Page 6 of 8

the attack.
11. The Applicant’s alleged role must also be considered in the context of
Sections 34 and 120-B IPC. The prosecution does not merely allege that he
accompanied the other accused. It attributes to him participation in the
planning of the attack and an active role in preventing the deceased from
escaping while the assault was carried out. If established, such conduct may
attract criminal liability notwithstanding that no stab injury is personally
attributed to him. Whether the prosecution ultimately succeeds in establishing
the alleged common intention or conspiracy is a matter for trial. For the
present, however, the specific allegations against the Applicant, the testimony
of PW-1 and PW-2 and the accompanying material provide a prima facie basis
for considering his involvement in the alleged offence.
12. The Court is conscious that the Applicant has undergone more than
three years of incarceration and that the trial has progressed slowly, with a
substantial number of prosecution witnesses yet to be examined. His
compliance with the conditions imposed during an earlier period of interim
bail is also a circumstance in his favour. These considerations deserve weight,
particularly in assessing whether further detention is necessary. However,
they must be balanced against the material specifically implicating him, the
nature of his alleged participation and the fact that witnesses concerning
motive and conspiracy remain to be examined. The earlier FIR under Section
324 IPC referred to by the State has also been considered. Its final status is
not conclusively established on the material before the Court, and no
inference of guilt is drawn from its registration.
13. Having considered the circumstances in their entirety, the Court is not
persuaded that a case for grant of regular bail is presently made out. The
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:16:34
BAIL APPLN. 2655/2026 Page 7 of 8

application is accordingly dismissed. Having regard to the period already
spent by the Applicant in custody, the Trial Court is requested to make every
endeavour to expedite the recording of prosecution evidence, particularly that
of the remaining material witnesses, and to avoid unnecessary adjournments.
It is clarified that the observations made herein are confined to the present bail
application and shall not influence the Trial Court’s independent appreciation
of the evidence.
14. The application stands disposed of accordingly.


SANJEEV NARULA, J
OCTOBER 16, 2026 /ab


Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:HIMANSHI CHAWLA
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:16:34
BAIL APPLN. 2655/2026 Page 8 of 8