Habeas-type writ petition for production of the petitioner's minor daughter. The daughter was traced and produced in court and expressed a wish to return to her parents; her statement under Section 183 BNSS was recorded. The petition was rendered infructuous.
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.
$~57
KRISHNA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr Kuldeep Kumar, Adv.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel Crl with Ms Priyam Aggarwal, Mr Abhinav Kr. Arya & Mr. Aryan Sachdeva, Advs. Mr Ajay Chouhan, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR
% 16.04.2025 CRL.M.A. 11303/2025 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(CRL) 1186/2025
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 23/04/2025 at 12:02:29
writ petition has been rendered infructuous.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J
APRIL 16, 2025 hsk
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 23/04/2025 at 12:02:29
1 issue framed by the court
Should the minor daughter be produced before the Court under Article 226?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Krishna
State of NCT of Delhi
Subramonium Prasad
Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
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
