In Sourab Rawat v. State (NCT of Delhi), BAIL APPLN. 3138/2026, decided with the connected application of co-accused Ankit Kumar (BAIL APPLN. 3215/2026) on 17 October 2026, the Delhi High Court granted regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS to two of the accused in the April 2023 stabbing of a nineteen-year-old near Khan Market. Justice Sanjeev Narula's judgment is a careful study in how courts weigh prolonged custody against the gravity of a murder charge — and in why the grant of bail rests not on any finding that the prosecution is weak, but on the conclusion that continued detention had ceased to serve any purpose of the trial.
The prosecution case
On 16 April 2023, a nineteen-year-old named Akash was stabbed to death near Khan Market; the post-mortem attributed death to shock and haemorrhage from multiple stab wounds. The prosecution’s theory is of a planned attack by members of a rival group amid pre-existing hostility. Against Sourab Rawat, the allegation is that he slapped the deceased and carried a knife; against Ankit Kumar, that he came armed and joined the assault. The chargesheet invoked Sections 302, 120-B and 34 of the IPC along with Section 27 of the Arms Act, though no Arms Act charge was framed against either applicant. The State and the complainant opposed bail on the strength of CCTV footage, call detail records, a witness identification, the recovery of a knife, and — against Ankit — a threat video from January 2023, contending that release risked intimidation of the many witnesses yet to depose.
What tilted the balance
Justice Sanjeev Narula’s analysis proceeded factor by factor, and its candour is instructive. On the oral dying declaration, the Court noted that neither applicant was individually named — a circumstance that "neither excluded nor established" their participation. No independent public witness identified either applicant as an assailant, the CCTV footage did not capture the assault itself, the identifications were disputed, and the knife recovery was questioned. Both applicants had Delhi residences, no criminal antecedents, and had been in custody for over three years while only a small share of the 58 cited witnesses had been examined.
The Court was careful with the delay factor. In a murder case, it held, "neither prolonged custody nor the anticipated duration of trial can, by itself, justify bail" — but here the delay was not speculative; it was the documented arithmetic of the trial. On the apprehension of witness tampering, the State could point to no specific instance, and the Court found the concern adequately answerable through conditions. The conclusion followed: "the continued detention of these Applicants is not necessary to secure the purposes of the proceedings."
The conditions
- Personal bonds of Rs 25,000 each with two sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court.
- Appearance before the trial court on every date of hearing unless exempted.
- No contact with, threat to, or influence over any prosecution witness, including the family of the deceased.
- Reporting to the Investigating Officer on the first Monday of every month, with a two-hour outer limit on the attendance.
- Current addresses and mobile numbers to be furnished, with advance notice of any change.
- No departure from India without the trial court’s permission; no obstruction of the trial or tampering with evidence.
The State retains liberty to seek cancellation on any violation, and the Court recorded — as bail courts must — that its observations are tentative and do not bind the trial court’s appreciation of the evidence.
Reading the judgment alongside its companion
The same judge, on the same day and in the same FIR, dismissed the bail application of a third co-accused, Karan Rai — a contrast examined in a separate piece on this site. The two outcomes together map the terrain of bail in multi-accused murder cases with unusual precision: where two witnesses claimed to have heard the deceased name an accused, bail was refused; where the dying declaration was silent as to the applicant and no witness filled the gap, three years of custody and a distant trial horizon carried the day. Role-specific material, not the gravity of the common charge, is what separates co-accused at the bail stage.
For practitioners, the judgment is a template for the long-custody bail application in Delhi: build the application around the specific evidentiary gaps as to the applicant’s individual role, document the pace of the trial with the order-sheets, and pre-empt the tampering objection by proposing concrete, verifiable conditions. The gravity of Section 302 is a constant; what varies — and what decides — is the material against the person actually before the court.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the case in which bail was granted?
FIR No. 53/2023, Police Station Tughlak Road, concerning the stabbing of a young man near Khan Market in April 2023, charged under Sections 302, 120-B and 34 IPC with Section 27 of the Arms Act — though no Arms Act charge was framed against these two applicants. The prosecution attributes the attack to rivalry between two groups and has cited 58 witnesses.
Why did the Court grant bail despite a murder charge?
The oral dying declaration named neither applicant individually; no independent witness identified them as assailants; the CCTV footage did not capture the assault; and both had spent over three years in custody with only a small fraction of the 58 witnesses examined. The Court held that while prolonged custody alone does not justify bail in a murder case, here the delay was real, no instance of witness tampering was shown, and conditions could address the State's concerns.
Did the Court find the prosecution's case weak?
No — it said so expressly: "This conclusion does not rest upon any finding that the prosecution case is weak." Questions of guilt, common intention and conspiracy were left entirely for trial. The bail enquiry asked a narrower question: whether continued detention of these applicants was necessary to secure the purposes of the proceedings. The Court concluded it was not.
What conditions were imposed?
Personal bonds of Rs 25,000 with two sureties each; appearance on every trial date unless exempted; no contact with or influence over any prosecution witness including the deceased's family; monthly reporting to the Investigating Officer; furnishing and updating addresses and mobile numbers; no travel abroad without the trial court's permission; and no tampering with evidence. The State may seek cancellation on any violation.