Petitioner sought parole for TADA-related charges alleging inaction by competent authority. Court directed authority to decide application within six days, then disposed of the petition.
Direction to competent authority to decide parole application within six days.
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.
$~48
MOHD. ANWAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Hemant Gulati, Advocate.
versus
STATE, NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC (Crl) for State along with SI Sandeep Yadav, PS: Sadar Bazar.
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
O R D E R % 09.04.2025
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 16/04/2025 at 12:32:22
DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
APRIL 09, 2025/vc
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
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 16/04/2025 at 12:32:22
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the competent authority should decide the petitioner's parole application within a specific timeframe.
Mohd. Anwar
State, NCT of Delhi
Swarana Kanta Sharma
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
