Petition under Articles 226 and 227 seeking protection; counsel sought leave to withdraw and the court permitted withdrawal, disposing of the petition.
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.
$~33
SUSHMITA
.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Diwanshu Sehgal, Advocate.
versus
STATE GNCT OF DELHI AND ORS
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Anand V. Khatri, Ld. ASC for State with SI Tarun Khatri, P.s. Paschim Vihar, West. Mr. Vaibhav Arora, Mr. Arpit Batra, Mr. Tariq Anwar, advocates for R-5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12 and 13.
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
O R D E R
% 06.08.2024
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J
AUGUST 6, 2024/va
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 04/07/2025 at 03:39:17
Sushmita
State GNCT of Delhi
Neena Bansal Krishna
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
