The Delhi HC allowed an exemption application to withdraw a writ petition. The petition, filed for parole extension, was dismissed after the Appellant's counsel sought permission to withdraw it following a court warning regarding a fake medical prescription.
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.
$~23
MOHD. ANWAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. M.L. Yadav, Advocate.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, ASC (Crl.) with Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, Advocate for the State with SI Sandeep Yadav, PS Sadar Bazar.
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
O R D E R % 07.01.2025
CRL.M.A. 68/2025 (Exemption)
W.P.(CRL) 9/2025
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 02/07/2025 at 00:25:37
Section 5 of TADA (P) Act, 1987, registered at Police Station Sadar Bazar. He had been admitted to Parole vide Order dated 09.12.2024, for a period of four weeks on account of surgery of his wife.
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J
JANUARY 7, 2025/RS
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 02/07/2025 at 00:25:37
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mohd. Anwar
State (NCT 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
