Ram Gopal Goswami v. State NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Delhi HC3 Feb 2025W.P.(CRL)/3335/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court, W.P.(CRL) 3335/2024, decided 03.02.2025: habeas corpus writ petition under Article 226 Constitution and S.528 BNSS 2023 for production of a missing 17-year-old last seen in Karol Bagh; AHTU Crime Branch status reports (11.11.2024, 06.12.2024, 31.01.2025); CCTV footage; possible voluntary departure; boy possibly now major; investigation to continue with quarterly reports before Magistrate; parents to be informed of leads; petition disposed, no further orders.

What did the court decide?

No habeas corpus/production ordered; the petition was disposed of with directions that the investigation continue, quarterly reports be filed before the concerned Magistrate, and the parents be informed by the police if any lead is found. ¶¶22

Ram Gopal Goswami Vs State NCT of Delhi and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~8

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 3^rd February, 2025

¶3

W.P.(CRL) 3335/2024 RAM GOPAL GOSWAMI .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Gayatri Virmani, Adv. versus

¶4

STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel (Crl.) with Ms. Priyam Aggarwal & Mr. Abhinav Kumar Arya, Advs., with Insp. Manoj and W/SI Meenakshi PS AHTU Crime Branch.

¶5

CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA

¶6

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

¶7

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

¶8

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus for production of the son of the Petitioner, who is 17 years of age and has gone missing from the boy’s rented accommodation in Karol Bagh on 12th September, 2024.

¶9

The missing boy is stated to have been working in a grocery shop in Karol Bagh Gali No. 14, 3636/14, Regar Pura Corner, Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 110005. The allegation is that the missing boy was living with two other employees of the said grocery shop in a one room accommodation. One of the co-occupants was his relative. It is further stated that the mother of the missing boy had spoken last with him on 10th September, 2024 and, thereafter, from

¶10

Signature Not Verified

¶11

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Da te:0 4.02.2025 15:46

¶12

Page 1 of 3

¶13

W.P.(CRL) 3335/2024

¶14

12th September, 2024 around 10:00 p.m, he had gone missing.

¶15

The Court on 23rd October, 2024, directed the police to take urgent steps since the boy was missing for over a month at the given point. On 12th November, 2024, the Court perused the status report dated 11th November, 2024 as per which there was no major progress except the fact that certain statements have been recorded from a few individuals in the neighbourhood where the missing boy used to live, from the shop where the missing boy used to work and his roommates, which would indicate that the missing boy may have left voluntarily.

¶16

The matter was thereafter transferred to Anti Human Trafficking Unit, Crime Branch considering that the missing boy is the sole earning member of the family. Thereafter, a further status report dated 6th December, 2024 was filed which did not reflect any further leads regarding tracing of the missing boy. The Court then directed the AHTU Crime branch to continue their investigation.

¶17

Today, a further status report dated 31^st January, 2025 has been filed by the AHTU, Crime Branch. The same be taken on record. Various status reports have been placed on record. Initially, certain CCTV footage was also recovered, which showed that the boy was walking alone near Karol Bagh area itself. A lady in the neighbourhood namely Mrs. Lalita Devi was also questioned, who had informed the police that the boy had shared certain issues relating to his gender orientation. Some images have also been shown to the Court, which were uploaded on the Instagram profile of the boy which corroborated the same. The AHTU Crime Branch had also made several enquiries from the neighbourhood and various other local communicates. However, it is submitted that the boy has not been traced.

¶18

Signature Not Verified

¶19

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Da te:0 4.02.2025 15:46

¶20

Page 2 of 3

¶21

W.P.(CRL) 3335/2024

¶22

It also appears that the boy may now have become major because he was 17 and a half years old when he had gone missing. Let the investigation continue and quarterly reports be filed before the concerned Magistrate. Considering these facts, no further orders are called for in this petition. The parents of the boy shall also be informed by the police, if any lead is found. 8. Under these circumstances, the petition is disposed of in the above terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

¶23

PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE

¶24

DHARMESH SHARMA JUDGE

¶25

FEBRUARY 3, 2025/ dk/ks

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Da te:0 4.02.2025 15:46

¶28

Page 3 of 3

¶29

W.P.(CRL) 3335/2024

Ram Gopal Goswami v. State NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Gopal Goswami v. State NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Baset Kakar Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Sona Bansal Vs Anurag Tiwary & Anr.

Joginder Kumar Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Om Pal Dhama & Anr. Vs State NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Lajina Begum Vs the State NCT of Delhi

Rajesh Mathur Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Central Bureau of Investigtation Vs Mukesh Kumar Dhingra

Sunil Kumar Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Shri Anirudh N Tankha Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr. & Ors.

Anunay Bajaj Vs the Commissioner of Police & Ors.

State of NCT of Delhi Vs Subhan Ali @ Gangi & Anr.

Gudiya Devi Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Rinku Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Manav Bharadwaj Vs the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), New Customs House, New Delhi