Dismissed¶¶37

Shivam@Shibbu v. the State (N.C.T of Delhi)

Delhi HC14 Jan 2026BAIL APPLN./72/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

This Court finds that the applicant failed to join the investigation despite due service of notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C., and coercive steps including issuance of non-bailable warrants and initiation of proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. have already been taken against him. ¶¶26

Shivam@Shibbu Vs the State (N.C.T of Delhi) — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant Shivam @ Shibbu in case FIR No. 550/2025, P.S. Model Town, Delhi, for offences under Sections 74/115(2)/126(2)/351(3)/3(5) BNS 2023, considering his failure to join investigation, the nature and gravity of the alleged offence, and the apprehension of intimidation of the complainant and witnesses.

¶¶15

Court's answer

¶¶26

Ratio / Principle

The nature and gravity of the offence alleged cannot be ignored: there are four injured persons, the medical evidence prima facie corroborates the prosecution case regarding seriousness of the injuries, and the injuries were allegedly inflicted by the applicant along with co-accused by use of a sharp stick.

¶¶27

Key takeaways

There exists a reasonable apprehension that the applicant may intimidate or harm the complainant and other witnesses; the parties are neighbours, specific complaints dated 16.11.2025 and 09.01.2026 allege repeated threats by the applicant, and granting anticipatory bail may adversely affect the fair course of investigation.ratio¶¶35
Having regard to the nature of allegations, the use of a sharp weapon resulting in grave and grievous injuries, the issuance of NBWs and the initiation of proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C., the Court held that no grounds are made out for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.ratio¶¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail refused — High Court of Delhi (Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.), 14.01.2026, dismissed Bail Appln. 72/2026 by Shivam @ Shibbu seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 550/2025, P.S. Model Town, Delhi, under Sections 74/115(2)/126(2)/351(3)/3(5) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Grounds relied on: (i) applicant failed to join investigation despite notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C., with non-bailable warrants issued and proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. initiated; (ii) nature and gravity of the offence — four injured persons whose MLCs prima facie corroborated grievous injuries inflicted with a sharp stick; (iii) reasonable apprehension that the applicant, a neighbour of the complainant, would intimidate witnesses, with threat complaints dated 16.11.2025 and 09.01.2026 on record. Order carries the usual caveat that nothing expressed therein is an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

¶1

$~83

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- BAIL APPLN. 72/2026

¶4

SHIVAM@SHIBBU .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Mukesh Kalia, Advocate

¶6

versus

¶7

THE STATE (N.C.T OF DELHI) .....Respondent

¶8

Through: Mr. Raj Kumar, APP for State.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

¶10

O R D E R % 14.01.2026

¶11

CRL.M.A. 659/2026 (exemption)

¶12

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶13

Application stands disposed of.

¶14

BAIL APPLN. 72/2026

¶15

By way of the present application, the applicant is seeking grant of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR bearing no. 550/2025, registered at Police Station Model Town, Delhi, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 74/115(2)/126(2)/351(3)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereafter ‘BNS’ ).

¶16

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

¶17

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 01.11.2025, the present FIR was registered on the basis of a PCR call received vide DD No. 10A. The statement of the complainant, Ms. ‘M’, wife of Mr. ‘V’, resident of Delhi, was recorded, wherein she stated that while returning from a party

¶18

This is a digitally signed order.

¶19

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 16/01/2026 at 12:36:57

¶20

along with her husband and in-laws, they had stopped at Model Town to drop her in-laws at their residence. It is alleged that while the complainant was standing on the staircase and her husband had gone to bring the car from the parking area, the accused persons, namely Vijender and Binder, had approached her from behind, whereupon accused Binder had allegedly held her from the back and accused Vijender had attempted to restrain her and remove her kurta . Upon the complainant raising an alarm, her family members had arrived at the spot and a scuffle had ensued between both parties. It is further alleged that the present accused/applicant Sibbu, and coaccused Aman and Arman had also joined and caused injuries to the complainant and her family members with a stick. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the present FIR was registered against the accused persons, Binder, Vijender, Aman, Sibbu i.e, the present applicant, and Arman. Subsequently, during the night, the injured persons from the complainant’s family were taken to BJRM Hospital, where medical examination of all four injured persons was conducted and treatment was provided. Thereafter, the complainant was produced before the learned Magistrate where her statement was recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, in which she reiterated and supported her earlier statement given to the police.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant argues that there is nothing to suggest that the present accused has caused injuries to the complainant. It is also argued that the complainant has filed the present complaint due to previous animosity. The learned counsel further argues that the applicant is ready to join the investigation as and when required by the I.O. Therefore, it is prayed that anticipatory bail be granted to the present

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

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 16/01/2026 at 12:36:57

¶24

applicant.

¶25

The learned APP appearing for the State, on the other hand, argues that the applicant herein had actively participated in the commission of the offence and had inflicted grievous injuries upon the injured persons by using a sharp stick. It is further contended that, despite service of notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C., the applicant has failed to join the investigation, and the proceedings under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. have been initiated against him. The learned APP also contends that the applicant has repeatedly threatened the complainant even after registration of the FIR. Accordingly, it is prayed that the present bail application be dismissed.

¶26

This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of the applicant and the State, and has perused the case file. 9. At the outset, this Court finds that the applicant has failed to join the investigation despite due service of notice. The record further shows that coercive steps, including issuance of non-bailable warrants and initiation of proceedings under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. have already been taken against him.

¶27

Further, the nature and gravity of the offence alleged cannot be ignored by this Court while considering the present bail application. The material on record at this stage discloses that there are four injured persons in the present case, and the medical evidence prima facie corroborates the prosecution case regarding the seriousness of the injuries. The injuries are alleged to have been inflicted by the applicant, along with the co-accused, by use of a sharp stick. The severity of the injuries and the manner in which they were caused clearly point towards the seriousness of the offence. The

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

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 16/01/2026 at 12:36:57

¶30

injuries sustained by the victims are set out below:

¶31

“J’s MLC: The doctor noted a laceration measuring 7x0.5x0.5 cm on the scalp, an abrasion on the right elbow, and a punctured wound on the right leg. He was referred for surgery. (Opinion: Punctured wound is possible with sharp object and other injury abrasion could be possible with 'Blunt or Sharp' object)

¶32

S’s MLC: The doctor stated that the patient was conscious and had a laceration measuring about 4x0.5x0.5 cm on the right temporal region, along with swelling on the ankle. (Opinion: Injuries could be possible with 'Sharp and Blunt object'. Nature of injury is Grievous)

¶33

U’s MLC: The doctor mentioned an abrasion on the right knee and right forearm, and swelling on the right temporal area.

¶34

M’s MLC: The doctor reported a laceration about 4x0.5x0.5 cm over the temporal region, an abrasion on the left forearm, and bruises on the thighs and right shoulder. Photographs of which has been attached with this report. (Opinion: Injuries could be possible with 'Sharp and Blunt object…”

¶35

This Court also finds force in the submission of the State that there exists a reasonable apprehension that the applicant may intimidate or harm the complainant and other witnesses. The parties are stated to be neighbours, and specific complaints vide dated 16.11.2025 and 09.01.2026 have been placed on record, alleging that the applicant has been repeatedly extending threats to the complainant. In such circumstances, granting anticipatory bail may adversely affect the fair course of investigation.

¶36

Considering the facts and circumstances, and having regard to the nature of allegations, the use of a sharp weapon resulting in grave and grievous injuries, the fact that NBWs have been issued and proceedings under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. have been initiated against the applicant, this Court is of the considered opinion that no grounds are made out for grant of anticipatory bail to the present applicant.

¶37

Accordingly, the present application is dismissed.

¶38

This is a digitally signed order.

¶39

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 16/01/2026 at 12:36:57

¶40

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

¶41

The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.

¶42

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

¶43

JANUARY 14, 2026/vc GJ/RB

¶44

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 16/01/2026 at 12:36:57

Shivam@Shibbu v. the State (N.C.T of Delhi)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivam@Shibbu v. the State (N.C.T of Delhi)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yogesh Vs State of NCT Delhi & Anr.

Arvind Aggarwal Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

X (Prosecutrix) Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Pawan Panday Vs Jyoti Panday and Ors.

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Manish Mavi Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.