$~13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 2588/2026 and CRL.M.A. 19825/2026 ABHINAV SHARMA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Nitin Vats, Advocate. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 29.07.2026 1. The instant application has been filed on behalf of the applicant under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking grant of anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No.88/2026, PS Chhawla for offences punishable under Sections 25(1)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act r/w Section 125 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has fully cooperated with the investigation. The applicant undertakes to abide by all such terms and conditions as may be imposed. 3. It is contended that there is no allegation that the applicant fired upon This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/07/2026 at 14:21:13 the complainant or any other person during the incident. The allegation of firing is exclusively against co-accused Pawan Kataria, who has already been enlarged on regular bail. The only allegation against the applicant is that he accompanied the said co-accused at the time of the incident. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the dispute in question arose on account of a trivial issue and has since been amicably resolved. In this regard, Sushil and Anurag have filed affidavits regarding their no objection to the grant of bail to the present applicant. 5. Submissions made on behalf of the applicant are vehemently opposed by learned APP for the State, who contends that bearing in mind the overall facts and circumstances and the gravity of the offence, the applicant should not be given benefit of anticipatory bail. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 7. It is an undisputed fact that Pawan Kataria has already been granted regular bail. The sole allegation against the present applicant is that he was accompanying Pawan Kataria. There is no allegation that the present applicant fired any weapon, and the firearm allegedly used in the commission of the offence has been recovered from Pawan Kataria. Furthermore, the applicant duly joined the investigation and appeared before the Investigating Officer whenever called upon to do so. 8. Anurag is present before this Court and submits that Sushil is his uncle. He further states that he has no objection if the present applicant is granted anticipatory bail. It is also submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled. 9. The power to grant anticipatory bail is intended to safeguard the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/07/2026 at 14:21:13 personal liberty of an individual while ensuring that the investigation is not impeded. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab1, and subsequently in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)2, has held that the grant of anticipatory bail is to be determined on the facts and circumstances of each case, keeping in view the nature of the accusation, the necessity of custodial interrogation, the antecedents of the applicant and the likelihood of the applicant fleeing from justice or influencing witnesses. 10. In the present case, the applicant has no criminal antecedents, has joined the investigation as and when required, and the prosecution has not demonstrated any compelling necessity for his custodial interrogation. Moreover, the principal allegation of firing is against the co-accused, who has already been granted regular bail, whereas no overt act of firing or use of any weapon has been attributed to the present applicant and the alleged firearm has already been recovered from the co-accused. 11. The amicable settlement arrived at between the parties and the complainant's no-objection to the grant of bail, though not determinative in offences under the Arms Act, constitute additional circumstances which reinforce the conclusion that the applicant is not likely to misuse the concession of anticipatory bail or interfere with the course of justice. 12. Bearing in mind the overall facts and circumstances, the Court finds that the applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest, the application be released on bail on such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Investigating Officer. 1 (1980) 2 SCC 565 2 AIR 2020 SC 831 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/07/2026 at 14:21:13 13. The application stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 29, 2026 Nc/ss This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/07/2026 at 14:21:13