On the day it granted bail to two co-accused in the Khan Market murder case, the Delhi High Court refused it to a third. Karan Rai v. State (NCT of Delhi), BAIL APPLN. 2655/2026, decided on 17 October 2026 by Justice Sanjeev Narula, holds the other half of the lesson: where two prosecution witnesses have already deposed that the dying victim named the applicant, and the attributed role is active — planning the attack, throwing a brick, restraining the deceased while others stabbed — more than three years of custody and a slow trial do not tip the balance. The two judgments, read together, show exactly where the bail line runs in multi-accused homicide cases.
The application and its history
Karan Rai, in custody since 17 April 2023 in FIR No. 53/2023 of Police Station Tughlak Road, applied for regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS. The procedural history mattered: the Sessions Court had dismissed bail pleas on 1 October 2024 and again on 1 June 2026, and an earlier High Court application had been withdrawn in February 2025 with liberty to reapply. The prosecution’s case attributes to him a planning role in the group attack on the deceased, together with overt acts — throwing a brick and restraining the victim while others stabbed him.
The defence attack on the dying declaration
The defence trained its fire on the alleged oral dying declaration. The deceased, it argued, was reportedly semi-conscious; the names do not figure in the FIR or the hospital records; the auto-rickshaw driver who carried the victim was never examined; the clothing of the witnesses was not seized; no stab injury or weapon is attributed to the applicant; and the CCTV footage does not show the assault. Added to this were the familiar long-custody factors: a trial with 58 cited witnesses moving slowly, family ties, ongoing education, and compliance with earlier interim bail.
Why the Court refused
Justice Sanjeev Narula declined to atomise the material. The circumstances, the judgment holds, "must be considered together, rather than in isolation." Three strands anchored the refusal:
Two direct witnesses
PW-1 and PW-2 deposed that the dying victim named the applicant, and PW-1 identified him in CCTV footage. The Court said it "cannot disregard the testimony of two witnesses who specifically claim to have heard the deceased identify the Applicant."
Admissibility vs. weight
An oral dying declaration "is not rendered inadmissible merely because it was not recorded by a doctor." The defence objections go to weight and credibility — questions for the trial court after full evidence.
An active attributed role
The alleged planning role and overt acts supplied a prima facie basis of involvement under Sections 34 and 120-B; whether common intention or conspiracy is ultimately proved remains open at trial.
The Court expressly acknowledged that the seriousness of the offence cannot by itself justify continued detention, and it weighed the custody period and trial pace in the applicant’s favour. But with material witnesses on motive and conspiracy yet to be examined — and with specific, role-attributing testimony already on record — the balance went against release. Notably, the Court drew no adverse inference from an earlier FIR under Section 324 IPC, confining itself to the material in the present case. The refusal came with a counterweight: a direction to the trial court to expedite the recording of prosecution evidence, especially the remaining material witnesses, and to avoid unnecessary adjournments.
The pair of judgments as a bail-stage map
Read with the companion order granting bail to co-accused Sourab Rawat and Ankit Kumar in the same FIR — covered separately on this site — the case supplies a rare controlled comparison. Same incident, same FIR, same judge, same day; opposite outcomes. The variable was not the charge, the custody period or the trial’s pace, all of which were common. It was the existence of witness testimony attributing a specific role to the specific applicant. Where that material existed, bail was refused and the trial expedited; where it did not, conditions were judged sufficient and bail followed. Parity arguments in multi-accused cases will succeed or fail on precisely this distinction.
For the defence, a refusal of this kind is not the end of the road: the expedition direction itself becomes the next application’s foundation. If the material witnesses are examined and the attributed role does not survive cross-examination — or if the trial stalls despite the direction — a fresh application on changed circumstances stands on demonstrably stronger ground.
Frequently Asked Questions
What role did the prosecution attribute to the applicant?
The prosecution alleged that he helped plan the attack on the deceased near Khan Market in April 2023, threw a brick at him, and restrained him while others carried out the assault. The chargesheet is under Sections 302, 120-B and 34 IPC with Section 27 of the Arms Act, and the applicant had been in custody since 17 April 2023.
Why was bail refused when co-accused in the same FIR were released?
The material differed. For the co-accused who were released, the oral dying declaration named neither and no witness identified them as assailants. Against this applicant, two witnesses — PW-1 and PW-2 — deposed that the deceased named him, and PW-1 identified him in CCTV footage. The Court held it could not disregard the testimony of two witnesses who specifically claim to have heard the deceased identify the applicant.
Is an oral dying declaration not recorded by a doctor admissible?
The Court observed that an oral dying declaration is not rendered inadmissible merely because it was not recorded by a doctor. Objections about the deceased's condition, the absence of the names from the FIR and hospital records, and the non-examination of the auto-rickshaw driver go to the weight and credibility of the declaration — matters reserved for the trial, not the bail hearing.
Did the Court address the long custody and slow trial?
Yes. It gave weight to the three-plus years in custody and the pace of a trial with 58 cited witnesses, but found these outweighed by the specific allegations and the pendency of material witnesses on motive and conspiracy. It balanced the refusal with a direction to the trial court to expedite the prosecution evidence and avoid unnecessary adjournments.