Writ petition seeking quashing of petitioner’s history sheet and removal from surveillance register dismissed after status report showed shift to lower-risk bundle.
Request to quash history sheet and remove from surveillance register dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~24
KHOOB SINGH ... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.Amit Rao, Advocate
versus
THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) & ORS ... Respondents Represented by: Mr.R.S.Kundu, ASC for the State with SI Pritam Singh, PS Darya Ganj
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
O R D E R % 03.04.2018
By this petition the petitioner seeks quashing of the history sheet opened against the petitioner at PS Darya Ganj and deleting the name of the petitioner entered in the surveillance register/B.C. List.
On a notice being issued, a Status Report has been filed. As per the Status Report, the petitioner was found involved in four cases. Thereafter, he was declared a B.C. and keeping in view of the criminal activities of the petitioner, his name was kept in the surveillance register No.10 and the history sheet of the petitioner was opened in the year 1975. Even MCOCA proceedings were also invoked against him in the year 2005.
On a review conducted by the DCP, Central District, the history sheet of the petitioner has already been shifted from bundle ‘A’ to bundle ‘B’ on 1st August, 2017.
W.P.(CRL) 539/2016
The history sheet having been shifted from bundle ‘A’ to bundle ‘B’ which, of course, would be subject to the further conduct of the petitioner, no further orders are called for in the present petition.
The petition is dismissed.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
APRIL 03, 2018 ‘rk’
W.P.(CRL) 539/2016
Page 2 of 2
KHOOB SINGH
THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI)
MUKTA GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
A constitutional writ petition in a criminal context, most commonly habeas corpus or a challenge to an FIR or detention order.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
