Dismissed¶29

Satya Prakash Ravidas v. State NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Delhi HC9 Sept 2025W.P.(CRL)/2399/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.(CRL) 2399/2025; Satya Prakash Ravidas v. State NCT of Delhi and Ors.; High Court of Delhi; habeas corpus; Article 226 Constitution of India; writ petition criminal; Raj Vidya Kender Chhatarpur; Atma Ram accountant Bal Brahmchari missing since 1988; belated habeas corpus petition dismissed 09.09.2025; petitioner in person; APP Ritesh Kumar Behri; Status Report; complaint 2023 Police Station Maidan Garhi; Ashram grievances/assets mis-utilization outside writ scope; delay factor life and liberty; Manoj Jain J; Vivek Chaudhary J.

What did the court decide?

Finding no merit and substance in the petition seeking habeas corpus for Sh. Atma Ram, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. ¶29

Satya Prakash Ravidas Vs State NCT of Delhi and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of habeas corpus should be issued for tracing, rescuing and liberating Sh. Atma Ram, allegedly missing from the premises of Raj Vidya Kender, Chhatarpur since 1988. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

Finding no merit and substance in the petition seeking habeas corpus for Sh. Atma Ram, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner had given a different colour altogether to the petition: his apprehensions about illegal activities in the Ashram, mis-utilization of its resources and assets, and occupation by anti-social elements cannot be made subject matter of a writ petition of the present nature.

¶28

Key takeaways

The delay factor alone would not come in the way of the Court when it comes to someone's life and liberty; dismissal here rested on the want of merit in the petition, not on delay.obiter¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (coram: Vivek Chaudhary and Manoj Jain, JJ; oral judgment delivered by Manoj Jain, J) dismissed a habeas corpus writ petition (W.P.(CRL) 2399/2025) filed in person by Satya Prakash Ravidas under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking tracing, rescuing and liberation of one Sh. Atma Ram, an accountant said to be missing from Raj Vidya Kender, Chhatarpur since 1988. Petitioner had last met Atma Ram in 1987, had no contact since 1988, and offered no plausible explanation for belated filing; his affidavit disclosed only a professional association till 1988. State's Status Report showed Atma Ram had joined as Accountant in 1980 and left of his own free-will in 1988, that petitioner was never an Ashram member, and that petitioner had lodged a similar complaint in 2023 with PS Maidan Garhi which he did not disclose. Court held the petitioner's apprehensions regarding the Ashram's functioning, assets and purported unlawful occupation could not be made subject matter of such a writ petition; it noted in passing that delay alone would not bar consideration touching life and liberty.

¶1

$~8

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 09^th September, 2025

¶4

- W.P.(CRL) 2399/2025

¶5

SATYA PRAKASH RAVIDAS

.....Petitioner

Through: In person.

versus

STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS

¶10

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Behri, APP for State.

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK CHAUDHARY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

¶13

MANOJ JAIN, J (ORAL)

¶14

The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for tracing, rescuing and liberating one Sh. Atma Ram.

¶15

According to the petitioner, Sh. Atma Ram was an accountant and Bal Brahmchari and is, allegedly, missing from the premises of Raj Vidya Kender, Chhatarpur, where he used to work.

¶16

During course of the arguments, when asked, petitioner submitted that he met said Sh. Atma Ram, lastly, in the year 1987 and that he had no contact with him since 1988. Despite persistently asking about the reason behind belatedly filing of the present petition, no explanation, much less a plausible one, could be offered by him.

¶17

When this petition was taken up on 04.08.2025, he was directed to file

¶18

W.P.(CRL) 2399/2025 1

¶19

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 1.09.2025 16:19:51

¶20

a fresh affidavit disclosing about his association with Sh. Atma Ram and was also asked to divulge about the other complaints/litigations, which might have been pursued by him in relation to Sh. Atma Ram. In compliance thereof, he has filed an affidavit in which he has deposed that he was, directly and professionally, associated with Sh. Atma Ram in his capacity as his colleague in Raj Vidya Kender where Sh. Atma Ram was serving as an Accountant. According to him, Sh. Atma Ram was the key custodian of financial records of Ashram of said Society where he worked till the year 1988 and had been missing since then.

¶21

A Status Report has already been filed by the Respondent-State and as per such report, the concerned police authorities contacted Raj Vidya Kender and as per the reply given by them, one Sh. Atma Ram did join them as an Accountant in the year 1980 but he, of his own free-will left them in the year 1988. According to them, there was no further information about him. It was also revealed by them that in the year 2023 also, the petitioner herein had filed a similar complaint against them in which he had rather proclaimed that death of Sh. Atma Ram was a riddle. They also divulged that the petitioner herein was never ever member of their Ashram.

¶22

It seems that petitioner has some grievance with respect to the functioning of the Ashram of Raj Vidya Kender and has attempted to portray a different picture in the present petition. It is really beyond comprehension to understand as to why, if at all, said Sh. Atma Ram was missing since 1988, the petitioner did not take any action immediately, then and there.

¶23

During course of the arguments, the petitioner though contended that he had taken some action in the year 2015 but no such communication has seen light of the day. Moreover, as per Status Report, the petitioner had

¶24

W.P.(CRL) 2399/2025 2

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 1.09.2025 16:19:51

¶27

lodged one complaint in the year 2023 with Police Station Maidan Garhi in relation to same Sh. Atma Ram but for the reasons best known to him, such fact has not even been divulged by him in the present petition.

¶28

Undoubtedly, the delay factor alone would not come in the way of the Court when it comes to someone’s life and liberty but quite clearly, the petitioner has given a different colour altogether to his petition. He seems to have apprehension that certain illegal activities are being carried out by the Ashram and the resources and assets of the Ashram are being mis-utilized. He also apprehends that some anti-social elements have, unlawfully, occupied the Ashram and its properties and they continue to exploit the assets of the Ashram for their personal gains.

¶29

Fact, however, remains that these aspects cannot be made subject matter of the writ petition of the present nature and, therefore, finding no merit and substance in the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed.

¶30

VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J

¶31

MANOJ JAIN, J

¶32

SEPTEMBER 9, 2025/ck

¶33

Signature Not Verified

¶34

W.P.(CRL) 2399/2025 3

¶35

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 1.09.2025 16:19:51

Satya Prakash Ravidas v. State NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satya Prakash Ravidas v. State NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pawan Dagar Vs the State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Pawan Dagar Vs the State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Jazib Jafri Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Nikhil Kumar Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Vineet Dhingra and Ors. Vs the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Sunil Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Gaurav Kumar & Anr. Vs State NCT of Delhi

Amarjeet Singh & Anr. Vs State NCT of Dehi and Anr.

Mohd. Haneef Chairalu Vs National Investigation Agency

Shabad Manchanda Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Sarojini Market Shopkeepers Association through Its General Secreatry, Mr. Nitin Bhata Vs Govind Prasad Gupta & Ors.

Sh Bhagat Ram Vs State NCT of Delhi