Writ petition under Article 226 challenged an unspecified matter; after the State called it frivolous, counsel sought and obtained leave to withdraw.
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.
$~32
Through: Counsel for petitioner ( appearance not given )
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, ASC with Ms. Anisha Gupta, Advocate for State and IO/SI Ritu Dangi, PS Cyber, Shahdara. Mr. Nitish, Advocate for R-4. Mr. Sonu Jha, Advocate for R-5.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
O R D E R
% 06.01.2026
GIRISH KATHPALIA, J
JANUARY 6, 2026/ ry
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 07/01/2026 at 12:20:55
Rajeev Ralhan
The State NCT of Delhi
Respondent No. 4
Respondent No. 5
Girish Kathpalia
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
