$~38 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010181812026 + CRL.REV.P. 268/2026 and CRL.M.A. 13174/2026 MANOJ VERMA@ JAI VERMA AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Dilip Santoshi, Mr. Rahul Kumar Singh, Mr. Gautam Kumar and Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocates. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for State. SI Gaurang Tyagi, and HC Punitanan, PS Gandhi Nagar. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 01.09.2026 1. The petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 02.09.2025 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge - 02, Special Judge (NDPS), East Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Session Case No. 506/2021 arising out of FIR No. 869/2014 registered at PS Gandhi Nagar, Delhi whereby charges under sections 307/452/506/34 of Indian Penal Code [“IPC”] and Section 27 of Arms Act have been directed to be framed against the petitioner. 2. Learned Counsel for petitioners submits that the impugned order has was passed in a mechanical manner, without proper appreciation of medical, 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 08/09/2026 at 11:45:34 forensic and documentary evidence on record. 3. Learned APP for State submitted that the complainant Jatin has categorically stated that accused Manoj fired upon him with a country made pistol with an intention to kill him while the co-accused Akash Verma and Yash pal @ Rinku Mallah facilitated the assault and exhorted Manoj to shoot. It is further submitted that the recovery of cartridge and ballistic report further corroborates the use of firearm. Hence, there is sufficient material on record to frame charges against the present applicant. 4. The presence of the specific and consistent allegations against all three accused, coupled with the fact that the complainant himself is an injured witness, cannot be lightly brushed aside. There has been recovery of one live cartridge which corroborates the version of the complainant regarding use of the Firearm. 5. In Sajjan Kumar v CBI,1 Supreme Court stated that where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court would be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. It was further observed that, at this stage, the Court is not required to conduct a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter or weigh the evidence as if conducting a trial. 6. The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner will have to be examined during the course of trial. The defence, at this stage, cannot be considered. 7. Accordingly, bearing in mind the overall facts and circumstances, no interference to the impugned order dated 02.09.2025 is called for and, 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 08/09/2026 at 11:45:34 therefore, the petition along with pending application stands dismissed. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J SEPTEMBER 1, 2026 aks/nk 1 (2010) 9 SCC 368 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 08/09/2026 at 11:45:34