Sumit@ Chavva v. State NCT Of Delhi

$~51 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 1015/2026 SUMIT@ CHAVVA .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Rishi Pal Singh, Advocate (through VC) versus STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through:

Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for State with Deepak Kumar, PS: Jahangir Puri, Delhi.

CORAM:

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

O R D E R

% 16.03.2026 CRL.M.A. 7744/2026 (exemption) 1.

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2.

Application stands disposed of.

BAIL APPLN. 1015/2026 3.

By way of the present application, the applicant is seeking grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR bearing no. 117/2025, registered at Police Station Jahangirpuri, Delhi, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 109(1)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereafter >BNS?) and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. 4.

Issue notice. The learned APP accepts notice on behalf of the State. 5.

Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that on 05.02.2025, a PCR call vide DD No. 103A was received regarding a shooting incident. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

Acting upon the said information, the police officials had immediately proceeded to BJRM Hospital, where they had found the injured person/victim, Piyush, admitted with a gunshot injury on his chest and undergoing treatment. He had informed the I.O. that his neighbours, i.e. Sumit @ Chavva (the applicant), along with co-accused Aniket @ Parvesh and Ranjeet @ Chhotu, had shot him near Hathi Wale Park. 6.

His statement was later recorded by the I.O., wherein he disclosed that a few days prior to the incident, he had a quarrel with the applicant herein, during which the applicant had threatened to shoot him. Thereafter, on 05.02.2025, while he was passing through a lane near Hathi Wale Park, he was confronted by the applicant along with co-accused Aniket @ Parvesh and Ranjeet @ Chhotu. The said persons had allegedly abused and threatened him, following which the applicant herein had fired a shot from a pistol which had struck him on the chest. Thereafter, all the accused persons had fled from the spot.

7.

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant argues that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case, and has been in judicial custody since 22.07.2025. It is contended that the investigation qua the applicant has already been completed and, therefore, no purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in further custody. It is also argued that the weapon allegedly used for causing injuries to the victim has not been recovered from the possession of the applicant. It is also stated that coaccused persons have already been granted regular bail. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 8.

Per contra, the learned APP for the State opposes the bail application and argues that the allegations against the applicant are grave and serious in The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

nature. It is contended that the applicant had fired a gunshot at the injuredvictim, which had struck him in the chest, and that the incident had taken place following a prior quarrel between the parties. It is further argued that the applicant has previously been involved in criminal cases of similar nature. It is also argued that the applicant cannot claim parity with the other co-accused persons, as their roles are distinct; and it was the present applicant who had fired the gunshot at the injured. In view of the seriousness of the allegations and the role attributed to the applicant, it is prayed that the present bail application be dismissed.

9.

This Court had heard arguments addressed on behalf of the applicant as well as the State, and has perused the material available on record. 10.

After hearing arguments advanced by both sides and upon perusal of the case file, this Court notes that the allegations against the present applicant are that he had fired a gunshot at the victim, which struck a vital part of his body, i.e, his chest. The MLC placed on record further indicates that the injuries sustained by the complainant were opined to be grievous in nature.

11.

Furthermore, one of the contentions raised on behalf of the applicant is that the co-accused, namely Aniket @ Parvesh, was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 16.09.2025, and Ranjeet @ Chhotu was granted bail by the learned ASJ vide order dated 06.10.2025. However, this Court notes that the role attributed to the present applicant is distinct from that of the coaccused persons, as the allegation against the present applicant is that he had fired the gunshot, whereas the other co-accused persons were merely accompanying him at the time of the incident. 12.

This Court further notes that the role attributed to the applicant stands The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

prima facie corroborated from the statements of the injured-victim as well as the victim?s mother, recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS. In their respective statements, both the victim and his mother have stated that the victim was shot by the present applicant by use of a firearm. 13.

It is also pertinent to note that the applicant is involved in five other criminal cases, out of which two are of a similar nature and one pertains to an offence of murder, all of which are stated to be pending before the concerned Trial Courts.

14.

This Court, in these circumstances, is also of the view that charges in the present case are yet to be framed and the complainant as well as the complainant?s mother, who are material witnesses, are yet to be examined before the learned Trial Court. Considering that the applicant and the said witnesses reside in the same vicinity and are neighbours, the possibility of the applicant influencing or intimidating them cannot be ruled out if he is enlarged on bail at this stage.

15.

In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant.

16.

Accordingly, the present bail application is dismissed. 17.

Nothing expressed hereinabove shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

18.

The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J MARCH 16, 2026/vc ap/rb The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.