Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Raj Kumar Vs State NCT of Delhi & Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2025)

Home
Delhi HC
2025
Raj Kumar Vs State NCT of Delhi & Ors.Raj Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Dismissed¶44

Raj Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi & Ors.

HABEAS CORPUS – MAINTAINABILITY

Delhi HC11 Mar 2025W.P.(CRL)/514/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.(CRL) 514/2025, Delhi High Court, decided 11 March 2025 (Justice Prathiba M. Singh, oral; Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta). Raj Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi & Ors. Habeas corpus petition under Article 226 by an uncle seeking production of his missing niece; dismissed as non-maintainable due to suppression of material facts: the niece's 2021 court marriage to Prashant Yadav (marriage certificate dated 22-07-2021, Farrukhabad, UP), the couple's earlier Allahabad High Court petition (Writ C No.19145 of 2021, titled Smt. Kanchan Kumari & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors, disposed 10.08.2021), and the inconclusive joint family meeting of 13.02.2025; petitioner did not dispute the statement of Mr. Netra Singh. Contribution of Rs. 10,000/- imposed payable to Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee. Keywords: habeas corpus maintainability, non-disclosure/concealment of facts, missing person, court marriage certificate, status report SHO PS Raj Park, costs, Article 226.

What did the court decide?

The writ of habeas corpus is not maintainable because none of the material facts (the 2021 marriage, the February 2025 family meetings, etc.) were disclosed by the petitioner before this Court. ¶43

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Production of the petitioner's missing niece through a writ in the nature of habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

The writ of habeas corpus is not maintainable because none of the material facts (the 2021 marriage, the February 2025 family meetings, etc.) were disclosed by the petitioner before this Court.

Key takeaways

The petitioner, present in Court, admitted knowing these facts, accompanied the police when Mr. Netra Singh's statement was recorded, and does not dispute that statement; his counsel expressed surprise that these facts were not disclosed to him.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HABEAS CORPUS — MAINTAINABILITY — Article 226 writ petition by uncle (Raj Kumar) seeking production of missing niece DISMISSED as not maintainable: petitioner concealed that the niece had contracted a court marriage with one Prashant Yadav in 2021 (certificate dated 22-07-2021, Registrar Marriage, Farrukabad, UP; solemnized 19/07/2021), that the couple had filed Writ C No.19145 of 2021 before the Allahabad High Court (prayers rejected as premature vide order dated 10.08.2021, with liberty to seek police protection under Government Orders dated 31.8.2019 and 5.9.2019), and that a joint family meeting on 13.02.2025 regarding ceremonial marriage ended without conclusion; petitioner, present in Court, admitted knowledge of these facts and did not dispute the recorded statement of Mr. Netra Singh (maternal uncle of the husband, retired UP Police Sub-Inspector); petitioner's counsel expressed surprise at the non-disclosure. Couple not traced despite police raids in UP (07/03/2025). COST: petitioner directed to contribute Rs. 10,000/- to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks. Coram: Prathiba M. Singh (oral) & Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, JJ. Decision date: 11.03.2025.

A

$~10

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 11^th March, 2025

W.P.(CRL) 514/2025 RAJ KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. S. H. Ansari, Advocate. (M: 9810340436) versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel (Crl.) with Ms. Priyam Agarwal and Mr. Abhinav Kr. Arya, Advocates for State alongwith Insp. Ritesh Raj, PS-Raj Park.

CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA

Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral)

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

CRL.M.A. 4617/2025 (for exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of.

W.P.(CRL) 514/2025

This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus for the production of the Petitioner’s niece.

A detailed status report dated 9th March, 2025 under the signature of SHO, PS Raj Park, has been handed over on behalf of State by the office of Mr. Sanjay Lao, Ld. Standing Counsel (Criminal). The same is taken on record. As per the said status report, the missing girl and the boy, Mr. Prashant, have not been traced. However, some further information has been revealed relating to the girl and the boy. From the status report, it can be clearly gleaned that they had

Signature Not Verified

Page 1 of 5

W.P.(CRL) 514/2025

Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:10.03.2025 22:49:11

already gotten married in the year 2021 through Court Marriage, at Farukabad, Uttar Pradesh. Further, the statement of one Mr. Netra Singh, maternal-uncle of Mr. Prashant, who is a retired Sub-Inspector from the Uttar Pradesh Police has been recorded. The said statement is annexed along with the status report as ‘Annexure-E’.

A perusal of the statement given by Mr. Netra Singh reveals that the Court marriage of the couple took place in the year 2021. He has also made a statement that thereafter the families of the parties had sat down together to try and resolve the issues so that the wedding can be held in a customary manner as well. This meeting was held on 13^th February, 2025 which is the date when the first order was passed in this petition. The relevant extracts of the status report are also set out below :-

“IV. That on 07/03/2025, the team lead by Insp. O.P. Mandal also went to the house of Net Singh at village Morcha Nahar, PS Raja ka Rampur, Distt. Eitah, Uttar Pardesh, maternal uncle of Prashant but Prashant could not be found at that place also. Net Singh informed that the missing girl 'K' had married his nephew Parshant Yadav S/ Yashbir Singh R/o Village Karanpur, PostBhaisrashi, PS Patiyala Janpat, Distt Kashganj, Uttar Pardesh in 2021 through court marriage. He also provided a copy of the marriage certificate dated 22-072021 issued by Registrar Marriage, Tehsil Sadar, Farrukabad, Uttar Pardesh, and as per this marriage certificate the marriage was solemnized between the missing girl Kanchan and alleged Prashant Yadav on 19/07/2021 in Farukhabad UP. New fact also came in light that the missing girl 'K' and the alleged Prashant had also approached the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad by way of Writ C.No.19145 of 2021 and the Hon'ble Court had disposed off the said petition vide order dated 10/08/2021. A perusal of the said order shows that missing girl 'K' and alleged Prashant had claimed themselves to be a married couple and apprehending threat from the

Signature Not Verified

Page 2 of 5

W.P.(CRL) 514/2025

Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:10.03.2025 22:49:11

parents of the petitioners as well as from the police authorities. Copies of the certificate and above noted order dated 10/08/20212 are also enclosed with the status report as Colly Annexure-D.

V. Net Singh also stated that families of the boy namely Prashant and the missing girl namely 'K' held a joint meeting on 13.02.2025 regarding their ceremonial marriage, but no conclusion could be arrived at in that meeting and he was also present in that meeting. A statement of Net Singh S/o Late Shri Ram Nath Singh R/o Village Morcha Naher, PO & PS Raja Ka Rampur Janpat, Distt Eitah, Uttar Pradesh was separately recorded and a copy of the same is enclosed with the status report as Annexure-E. A DD Entry regarding the raid proceedings was lodged at PS Raja Ka Rampur, Distt. Eitah, Uttar Pardesh vide GD No. 34 dated 07/03/2025 and a copy of the same is enclosed with the status report as Annexure-F.

VI. Thereafter, on 07/03/2025, the team lead by Insp. O.P. Mandal, conducted a raid at the parental house of Prashant at village Karanpur Nangla, PS Patiyali Janpat, Distt Kashgunj Uttar Pradesh but said house was found locked but one female namely Smt. Preeti, aunt of Parshant met at the village who refused to give her statement but informed the team that Prashant and his family don't live here and they have shifted somewhere in Farrukabad. A DD Entry regarding the raid proceedings was lodged at PS Patiyali, Distt. Kashgunj, Uttar Pardesh vide GD No. 53 dated 07/03/2025 and a copy of the same is enclosed with the status report as Annexure-G.

VII. During the entire proceedings, the complainant/Petitioner Raj Kumar remained present with Police team and his statement was recorded and a copy of the same is enclosed with the status report as AnnexureH.”

In fact, a petition was filed by the couple before the Allahabad High Court

Signature Not Verified Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:10.03.2025 22:49:11

Page 3 of 5

W.P.(CRL) 514/2025

being WRIT-C No.19145/2021 , titled Smt. Kanchan Kumari & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors . wherein vide order dated 10^th August, 2021, the High Court had directed as under :-

“By means of this writ petition, petitioners are claiming following reliefs:

“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful marital life of petitioners as husband and wife and direct to the respondent no.2 and 3 to provide protection to the petitioners.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to visit and knock the door of the petitioners.

(iii) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case to secure the ends of justice.

The petitioners are claiming themselves to be a married couple. They have alleged that they got married on 19.7.2021 and are apprehending threat from the parents of the petitioners as well as from the police authorities. However, petitioners have still not approached before the police authorities for seeking protection in view of the Government Orders dated 31.8.2019 and 5.9.2019, hence this petition is premature, therefore, the prayers made in this writ petition are rejected.

However, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the concerned police authorities with the prayer for protection in view of the aforesaid Government Orders

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.”

Signature Not Verified

Page 4 of 5

W.P.(CRL) 514/2025

Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:10.03.2025 22:49:11

It is noted that none of these facts have been disclosed by the Petitioner before this Court. In fact, the Petitioner who is present in Court was queried and admitted that he knew various facts including facts relating to the marriage in 2021, family meetings in February 2025 etc., He had also accompanied the police to UP when the statement of Mr. Netra Singh has been recorded in his presence. He doesn’t dispute any of the facts stated by Mr. Netra Singh. The ld. Counsel has expressed surprise in the Court that the Petitioner did not disclose these facts to him. Accordingly, the present writ of habeas corpus is not maintainable in the opinion of the Court.

Thus, the present petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

In view of the above conduct of the Petitioner who claims to be the uncle of the missing girl, of not disclosing various facts, the Petitioner shall contribute a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks.

Let the office of Mr. Sanjay Lao, ld. Standing Counsel (Criminal) ensure that the Petitioner complies with the directions of the Court.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE

RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA JUDGE

MARCH 11, 2025/ nd/ss

Signature Not Verified Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:10.03.2025 22:49:11

Page 5 of 5

W.P.(CRL) 514/2025

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Production of the petitioner's missing niece through a writ in the nature of habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution.¶10
2.
Whether the habeas corpus writ petition is maintainable in light of the petitioner's non-disclosure of material facts known to him (the couple's 2021 court marriage, the February 2025 family meetings).¶43
The court held
The writ of habeas corpus is not maintainable because none of the material facts (the 2021 marriage, the February 2025 family meetings, etc.) were disclosed by the petitioner before this Court.ratio¶43

Cases cited

Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority

AI extract

Smt. Kanchan Kumari & Anr. v. State of U.P. & OrsReferred¶18
Writ C.No.19145 of 2021

Statutes considered

2 provisions across 2 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226¶10
Government Orders dated 31.8.2019 and 5.9.2019Government Orders dated 31.8.2019 and 5.9.2019¶36

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Status report dated 9th March, 2025 under the signature of SHO, PS Raj Park, handed over by the State and taken on record; it records that the missing girl and Mr. Prashant have not been traced.¶11
Prior proceeding
Statement of Mr. Netra Singh, maternal-uncle of Mr. Prashant, a retired Sub-Inspector from the Uttar Pradesh Police, recorded and annexed with the status report as 'Annexure-E'.¶16
Prior proceeding
Per the status report, the missing girl 'K' (Kanchan) and Prashant Yadav had married through court marriage in 2021; a certificate dated 22-07-2021 issued by Registrar Marriage, Tehsil Sadar, Farrukabad, UP, shows the marriage was solemnized on 19/07/2021 at Farukhabad.¶18
Prior proceeding
The couple had earlier approached the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Writ C No.19145 of 2021, which was disposed of vide order dated 10/08/2021; copies enclosed with the status report as Colly Annexure-D.¶18
Prior proceeding
In the Allahabad writ, the prayers were rejected as premature because the petitioners had not first approached police authorities for protection under Government Orders dated 31.8.2019 and 5.9.2019, with liberty given to approach the concerned police authorities.¶36
Prior proceeding
As per the statement of Net Singh, the families of Prashant and the missing girl held a joint meeting on 13.02.2025 regarding ceremonial marriage, but no conclusion was reached; Net Singh was present at that meeting.¶24
Prior proceeding
On 07/03/2025 the police team led by Insp. O.P. Mandal raided the parental house of Prashant at village Karanpur Nangla, PS Patiyali, Distt Kashganj, UP; the house was found locked and an aunt informed the team that the family had shifted somewhere in Farrukabad.¶25

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Raj Kumar¶3
S. H. Ansari
respondent
State NCT of Delhi & Ors.¶3
Sanjay Lao, Priyam Agarwal, Abhinav Kr. Arya

Coram

AI extract

Prathiba M. Singhauthor¶5
Rajneesh Kumar Guptamember¶4

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Delhi HC
Decided on: 11 Mar 2025 · March
Registered: 12 Feb 2025
Case no.: W.P.(CRL)/514/2025
CNR: DLHC010064762025
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh Rajneesh Kumar Gupta
Case type: Writ Petition (Criminal)

A constitutional writ petition in a criminal context, most commonly habeas corpus or a challenge to an FIR or detention order.

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

Nearest Writ Petition (Criminal) decided by the Delhi HC

Sanjucta Kabasi Vs Registrar General & Ors.
10 Mar 2025Amit Sharma
Muskan Sharma & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.
10 Mar 2025Jasmeet Singh
Hema Ojha & Anr. Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
10 Mar 2025Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Anil Kumar Pandey & Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.
10 Mar 2025Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Okonkiwoh Monday Tony Vs Narcotics Control Bureau and Another
12 Mar 2025Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Raj Kumar Vs State NCT of Delhi & Anr.
12 Mar 2025Neena Bansal Krishna
Prateek Sachdeva Vs Directorate of Enforcement
12 Mar 2025Amit Sharma
Ashish Rana and Another Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.
12 Mar 2025Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

More from Prathiba M. Singh Rajneesh Kumar Gupta

Amirhossein Alizadeh Vs the Commissioner of Customs & Ors.
10 Mar 2025Writ Petition (Civil)
Akash Malik Vs Commissioner of Customs New Delhi
10 Mar 2025Writ Petition (Civil)
Kishan Chauhan Vs State NCT of Delhi and Ors.
10 Mar 2025Writ Petition (Criminal)
M/S Fone O Clock, through Its Partner, Sh. Paras Sareen Vs Commissioner of Customs-Preventive, New Custom House New Delhi & Anr.
11 Mar 2025Writ Petition (Civil)
Ramakant Shankarmal Pilani Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Cite this judgement

Raj Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi & Ors., W.P.(CRL)/514/2025 (DEL), decided on 11 March 2025.

The High Court of Delhi publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Cases cited1

Smt. Kanchan Kumari & Anr. v. State of U.P. & OrsReferred¶18

Open Authorities

Statutes2

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226
Government Orders dated 31.8.2019 and 5.9.2019Government Orders dated 31.8.2019 and 5.9.2019

View all statutes

Procedural history7

Status report dated 9th March, 2025 under the signature of SHO, PS Raj Park, handed over by the State and taken on record; it records that the missing girl and Mr. Prashant have not been traced.
Statement of Mr. Netra Singh, maternal-uncle of Mr. Prashant, a retired Sub-Inspector from the Uttar Pradesh Police, recorded and annexed with the status report as 'Annexure-E'.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta

Parties & counsel

11 Mar 2025

Writ Petition (Criminal)

M/S Prenda Creations Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

11 Mar 2025Writ Petition (Civil)