Writ petition disposed of after counsel for the petitioner submitted it had been rendered infructuous with the passage of time; no substantive determination was made.
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.
$~2
NEERAJ SEHRAWAT@ BAWANIA .....Petitioner Through: Mr.Sumit Chaudhary and Mr.Tushar Rohmetra, Advs.
versus
THE STATE OF NCT .....Respondent Through: Mr.Sanjay Lao, SC (Crl.) with Mr.Abhinav Kr. Arya and Mr.Aryan Sachdeva, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, with the passage of time, this petition has been rendered infructuous. The same is, accordingly, disposed of.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J
MAY 8, 2026 /ns/Yg
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 12/05/2026 at 13:26:20
Neeraj Sehrawat@ Bawania
The State of NCT
Navin Chawla
Ravinder Dudeja
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
