Delhi High Court Frees Two Khan Market Murder Accused Despite Conspiracy Charge
The Delhi High Court on October 17, 2026 granted regular bail to Sourab Rawat and Ankit Kumar, two accused in the April 2023 murder of a 19-year-old near Khan Market, even though the prosecution alleges a planned gang attack and criminal conspiracy. Justice Sanjeev Narula held that neither accused was named in the victim's alleged oral dying declaration, no independent witness has so far identified either of them as having inflicted any injury, more than three years have passed in custody, and only a small fraction of 58 cited witnesses has been examined. The Court was careful to add that it has not found the prosecution case to be weak.
The question the headline raises is simple: how can bail be granted in a murder case built on conspiracy and common intention? The judgment answers it in three parts. It tests each accused's individual role on the evidence recorded so far, weighs more than three years of custody against a trial that is nowhere near its end, and replaces custody with strict conditions that protect witnesses.
Case at a Glance
Case: Sourab Rawat v. State (NCT of Delhi), Bail Appln. 3138/2026 and CRL.M.A. 23679/2026, decided together with Ankit Kumar v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), Bail Appln. 3215/2026
Citation: 2026:DHC:9400
Bench: Justice Sanjeev Narula, High Court of Delhi
Reserved and pronounced: Reserved on October 13, 2026; pronounced on October 17, 2026 (the judgment is dated October 16, 2026)
Challenged: Dismissal of regular bail by the Sessions Court, most recently on July 13, 2026, in FIR No. 53/2023, Police Station Tughlak Road
Charges: Sections 302, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959
Outcome: Both applications allowed; regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 each with two sureties of the same amount, subject to six conditions
Background: A Rivalry, a Stabbing and Three Years in Custody
The FIR was initially registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed under Sections 302, 120-B and 34 of the Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution case is that Akash, aged about 19, was attacked and stabbed near Khan Market on April 16, 2023, amid long-standing hostility between two groups. He was taken to RML Hospital and declared brought dead. The post-mortem attributes death to shock and haemorrhage from multiple ante-mortem stab injuries.
According to the prosecution, after an earlier altercation the accused conspired to attack members of the rival group, assembled near Sujan Singh Park and moved towards Khan Market. Sourab Rawat is alleged to have slapped the deceased and carried a knife; Ankit Kumar is alleged to have been armed and part of the pursuing group. The State relies on CCTV footage, call detail records, recoveries and an oral dying declaration said to have been made while Akash was being taken to hospital.
What the Applicants Argued
Both argued that no specific act connects them with the fatal assault. The alleged dying declaration names Karan Rai, Vishal @ Gabru and Raunak along with associates, but not either applicant. The CCTV footage, they said, shows movement but not the assault. PW-1 Raja admitted he did not know Sourab before the incident and had not met Ankit. No charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act has been framed against either. Both pointed to no criminal antecedents, family ties in Delhi, more than three years in jail and a trial that has barely begun. Ankit further relied on repeated interim bail for examinations and medical treatment without any misuse.
What the State and the Complainant Argued
The State, supported by counsel for the Complainant, said the murder was a planned attack by a group and that both applicants took part. It relied on PW-1's identification of both in the footage, call records placing them nearby, PW-4's account of a group assault, and, for Ankit, a video dated January 1, 2023 in which he allegedly threatened members of the Khan Market group. Witnesses Gaurav, Saurav Kumar and Kamal Kishore, who speak to motive and conspiracy, are yet to be examined. The State also feared intimidation of witnesses.
What the High Court Held and Why
The Court said it must assess the prima facie material without a detailed appreciation of evidence or a finding on the credibility of witnesses, keeping in mind the caution of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan (2025 INSC 979) that circumstances bearing on the accused's participation and the risk to a fair trial cannot be overlooked in serious cases.
Issue 1: The Alleged Dying Declaration
PW-1 Raja and PW-2 HC Amit say Akash named Karan Rai, Vishal @ Gabru and Raunak with their associates. Neither applicant was named, and PW-2 acknowledged in cross-examination that Ankit's name was not disclosed.
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.
The Court expressly declined to rule on the reliability of the declaration, saying no such finding was needed to decide the applications.
Issue 2: The Independent Witnesses
PW-3 Vinod Kumar and PW-5 Imran heard a commotion and saw people running but did not see the assault or identify the assailants. PW-6 Brijesh Shukla did not support the prosecution and identified no accused. PW-4 Mohd. Saleem described a group assault, including a stabbing by a person whose face was muffled, but could not identify anyone, even in the CCTV footage. The Court concluded that 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.
Issue 3: CCTV Footage and Call Detail Records
PW-1 identified both applicants in the footage played before the Trial Court, but also said he did not know Sourab and had not met Ankit earlier. The Court held that the circumstances of that identification and its evidentiary value are matters for trial. The footage and call records support the allegation of concerted action, but the precise roles of the applicants and the inferences to be drawn remain for trial.
Sourab Rawat: Knife Allegation but No Arms Act Charge
The Court did not overlook the allegations that Sourab struck the deceased, carried a knife and joined the pursuit, or the knife recovered from the scooty of co-accused Vishal @ Gabru. But he is not named in the declaration, no independent witness attributes an injury to him, and no Arms Act charge has been framed. He has been in custody since April 2023 with no previous conviction or pending case, satisfactory conduct in jail and a fixed residence in Delhi.
Ankit Kumar: The January 2023 Video and Forensic Gap
The video of threats cannot be dismissed as inconsequential, said the Court, but its context and connection with the murder remain matters for trial. The supplementary forensic material records the deceased's blood on articles associated with co-accused Vishal @ Gabru but discloses no comparable finding connecting Ankit. He has no criminal antecedents, was pursuing his education when arrested, and surrendered as directed after each period of interim bail.
Issue 4: Sections 34 and 120-B IPC
The Court acknowledged that where common intention or conspiracy is established, liability does not depend on personally inflicting the fatal injury, and that the applicants' roles must be viewed in the context of the group's conduct. But the witnesses on motive and conspiracy are yet to be examined, and the evidence on these questions will have to be weighed by the Trial Court.
Custody, Delay and the Fear of Witness Intimidation
Both applicants have been incarcerated for more than three years. Charges were framed in April 2024 and the prosecution has cited 58 witnesses, of whom only a small fraction has been examined. The Court found no reasonable indication that the trial will conclude shortly. It was explicit that neither prolonged custody nor the likely length of trial can, by itself, justify bail in a murder case, but said the delay here is not conjecture and must be assessed together with each applicant's role, the evidence so far and individual circumstances.
On intimidation, the Court said the concern of the State and the Complainant cannot be dismissed lightly given the alleged rivalry and the pending motive witnesses. However, no specific instance of either applicant trying to influence a witness was shown, the principal documentary, electronic and physical evidence is already secured, and the apprehension can be addressed through conditions.
The Conditions Imposed
Appear before the Trial Court on every date of hearing unless exempted.
No direct or indirect contact, threat, influence or inducement of any prosecution witness, including members of the deceased's family.
Appear before the Investigating Officer at the concerned police station on the first Monday of every month, without being made to wait more than two hours.
Furnish current residential address and mobile number to the Investigating Officer and intimate any change in advance.
Not leave India without prior permission of the Trial Court.
Not engage in any activity intended to obstruct the trial or tamper with evidence.
The State is at liberty to seek cancellation of bail in accordance with law if any condition is violated.
What the Court Did Not Say
The Court was emphatic that its conclusion does not rest on 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. Those questions remain for trial.
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 Court also clarified that this bail does not, by itself, determine the entitlement of any other accused, whose application, if filed, will be considered on its own facts.
What It Means Going Forward
A conspiracy or common intention charge does not make bail impossible in a murder case. The Court still looks at what the evidence recorded so far shows about each accused individually.
Not being named in an alleged dying declaration, and the absence of any independent identification as the person who caused injury, weigh in favour of an accused at the bail stage, though they do not exclude participation.
Three years of custody with a long witness list pending is a relevant factor, but only alongside role, evidence and antecedents, not on its own.
Compliance with earlier interim bail conditions is a practical factor in answering concerns about misuse of liberty.
Fear of witness intimidation is addressed by tailored conditions where there is no specific instance of interference.
Bail and criminal trial practice turns on exactly this kind of role-by-role reading of evidence. If you want to build that skill in drafting and litigation, explore the Certificate Course in Criminal Law Drafting and Litigation at Into Legal World.
Get judgment updates like this on WhatsApp: Join the Into Legal World WhatsApp Channel
Frequently Asked Questions
Q1. Who got bail in this judgment? Sourab Rawat and Ankit Kumar, accused in FIR No. 53/2023 of Police Station Tughlak Road, in the April 16, 2023 murder of a 19-year-old near Khan Market.
Q2. Which court granted bail and who was the judge? The High Court of Delhi, Justice Sanjeev Narula, in a judgment pronounced on October 17, 2026 (2026:DHC:9400).
Q3. Why was bail granted in a murder case with a conspiracy charge? Neither accused was named in the alleged oral dying declaration, no independent witness has identified either as inflicting an injury, no Arms Act charge was framed against them, they have spent over three years in custody, and only a small fraction of 58 witnesses has been examined. The Court found the risks could be met by conditions.
Q4. Does this mean the accused are not guilty? No. The Court said it made no finding that the prosecution case is weak or that conspiracy or common intention cannot be established. Its observations are tentative and the Trial Court will decide independently.
Q5. What are the bail conditions? A personal bond of Rs. 25,000 each with two sureties, appearance at every hearing, monthly reporting to the Investigating Officer on the first Monday, no contact with witnesses, no leaving India without the Trial Court's permission, and no obstruction of the trial.
Keywords: Delhi High Court bail murder, Khan Market murder bail, Sourab Rawat bail, Ankit Kumar bail, Justice Sanjeev Narula bail, bail in murder case conspiracy, Section 483 BNSS bail, dying declaration bail, 2026:DHC:9400
Case Title: Sourab Rawat v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ankit Kumar v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Case No.: Bail Appln. 3138/2026 and CRL.M.A. 23679/2026; Bail Appln. 3215/2026
Citation: 2026:DHC:9400
Bench: Justice Sanjeev Narula
Read the judgment: Download the Delhi High Court judgment (PDF)
Comments