Disposed¶5

Aslam v. State

Delhi HC14 Jan 2026W.P.(CRL)/125/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Aslam v. State; W.P.(CRL) 125/2026; Delhi High Court; Prateek Jalan, J; 14.01.2026; punishment ticket; jail authorities; furlough; late surrender; three days delay; medical exigency; warning; Article 226; Sections 302 and 34 IPC; FIR No. 106/1998; P.S. Nabi Karim; convict; disposed of; liberty to approach Court.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief found necessary; petition and pending application disposed of, with a clarification preserving the petitioner's liberty to approach the Court if any adverse consequences arise in future from the warning. ¶5

Aslam Vs State — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~133

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(CRL) 125/2026 & CRL.M.A. 1153/2026 ASLAM .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Yugansh Mittal, Mr. Keshav, Advocates. versus STATE .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC (Crl) with Mr. Arjit Sharma and Ms. Sakshi Jha, Advocates. SI Harsh Kumar.

¶4

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

¶5

O R D E R

¶6

% 14.01.2026 1. By way of the present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, who is undergoing imprisonment for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], arising out of FIR No. 106/1998 registered at P.S. Nabi Karim, Delhi, challenges a purported “ Punishment Ticket ” dated 23.07.2024, which is stated to have been issued by the Jail Authorities. 2. Mr. Yugansh Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was released on furlough on 12.06.2024 for a period of three weeks. It is contended that the petitioner surrendered three days beyond the stipulated period on account of a medical exigency, which allegedly resulted in the issuance of the impugned punishment ticket. 3. Per contra, Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, learned Additional Standing

¶7

W.P.(CRL) 125/2026 Page 1 of 2

¶8

This is a digitally signed order.

¶9

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 16/01/2026 at 13:41:07

¶10

Counsel for the State, on instructions from the Jail Authorities, submits that no punishment ticket has, in fact, been issued against the petitioner. He submits that, upon consideration of the explanation furnished for the delay of three days in surrender, the petitioner was merely cautioned to remain careful in the future. It is further submitted that the petitioner has, even thereafter, been granted furlough.

¶11

In view of the aforesaid categorical submission made on behalf of the Jail Authorities that no punishment ticket exists on record, and that only a warning was administered to the petitioner, no further orders are required to be passed in the present writ petition.

¶12

Accordingly, the writ petition, alongwith the pending application, stands disposed of.

¶13

It is clarified that in the event any adverse consequences arise in future on account of the said warning, it shall be open to the petitioner to approach this Court, in accordance with law.

¶14

PRATEEK JALAN, J

¶15

JANUARY 14, 2026 SS/SD/

¶16

W.P.(CRL) 125/2026 Page 2 of 2

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

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 16/01/2026 at 13:41:07

Aslam v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aslam v. State

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

Sikander Behl Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Dinesh Aneja Vs Union of India through Bureau of Immigration & Anr.

Jitender Singh Vs State NCT of Delhi

Sahil Vs Commissioner of Police & Ors.

Sh. Ranjeet Singh Tuli Vs the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Khadija & Anr. Vs State of Gnctd of Delhi & Ors.

Renu Devi Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Vinod Kumar Kad Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Vikas Dhankhar & Ors. Vs State (Govt of NCT Delhi) & Anr.

Jony Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Dinesh Aneja Vs Union of India through Bureau of Immigration & Anr.

Sanjay Kumar and Ors. Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Mayank Gupta & Ors. Vs Central Bureau Investigation through the Investigating Officer Deputy Superintendent of Police

Rajan & Ors. Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.