Abc v. State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Delhi HC11 Feb 2026W.P.(CRL)/3922/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court order dated 11.02.2026 in W.P.(CRL) 3922/2025 (Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J.) on redaction/masking of a discharged petitioner’s name from online court records. Keywords: name redaction, masking, online records, Article 226 writ petition, FIR No. 250/2012, Arms Act 1959 section 30, P.S. IGI Airport, discharge, order on charge set aside by sessions court 29.05.2019, withdrawn quashing petition CRL.M.C. 1559, State no-objection, Registry direction within 02 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the Registry of the court to redact/mask the petitioner's name in the records of CRL.M.C. No. 1559/2019 on the court web-portal, including from the orders passed in that matter, within 02 weeks; petition disposed of in those terms. ¶¶21

Abc Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether directions should issue to redact/mask the petitioner's name from information appearing online in connection with proceedings arising from FIR No. 250/2012 (Arms Act, 1959), given his discharge and the State's no objection.

¶¶9

Court's answer

The petition is allowed: the Registry of the court is directed to redact/mask the petitioner's name wherever it appears in the records of CRL.M.C. No. 1559/2019 on the web-portal of the court, including from the orders passed in that matter.

¶¶19

Ratio / Principle

The redaction/masking is to be completed within 02 weeks.

¶¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (W.P.(CRL) 3922/2025) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Delhi (Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J.; order dated 11.02.2026) allowed. Petitioner, shown anonymised as “ABC”, sought redaction/masking of his name from information appearing online in connection with FIR No. 250/2012 registered under section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959 at P.S.: IGI Airport. He had been discharged after the learned sessions court set aside, by order dated 29.05.2019, the trial court’s order on charge dated 05.02.2019; his name nonetheless continued to appear in the records of his earlier quashing petition CRL.M.C. 1559/2016, withdrawn vide order dated 10.08.2018. The State’s status report dated 10.02.2026 confirmed no revision petition or appeal against the order dated 29.05.2019, no previous criminal involvements, and no objection to redaction. The Registry was directed to redact/mask the petitioner’s name in the records of CRL.M.C. No. 1559/2019 on the court web-portal, including from the orders passed therein, within 02 weeks; the petition was disposed of accordingly.

¶1

$~44

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(CRL) 3922/2025 ABC .....Petitioner

¶4

Through: Dr. Anandeshwar Gautam, Advocate.

¶5

versus

¶6

STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC for the State with Mr. Alok Sharma, Advocate. SI Pratima, P.S.: IGI Airport.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI O R D E R % 11.02.2026

¶9

By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks directions to the respondents to redact/mask his name in the information appearing online in connection with proceedings arising from case FIR No. 250/2012 registered under section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959 at P.S.: IGI Airport.

¶10

Notice on this petition was issued vidé order dated 01.12.2025.

¶11

Status Report dated 10.02.2026 has been filed in the matter.

¶12

Dr. Anandeshwar Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits, that pursuant to order dated 29.05.2019 passed by the learned sessions court, the order on charge dated 05.02.2019 passed by the learned trial court has been set-aside and the petitioner has been discharged in the matter.

¶13

W.P.(CRL) 3922/2025

¶14

Page 1 of 2

¶15

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 19/02/2026 at 13:17:18

¶16

Learned counsel submits however, that the petitioner’s name continues to appear in the records of CRL.M.C. 1559/2016, which petition was filed by him seeking quashing of the FIR and was subsequently withdrawn vidé order dated 10.08.2018.

¶17

The status report filed by the State narrates that no revision petition or appeal has been filed against order dated 29.05.2019; that the petitioner does not have any previous criminal involvements; and that the State has no objection if the name of the petitioner is redacted/masked in the information appearing on online platforms.

¶18

Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, learned ASC appearing for the State affirms the contents of the status report.

¶19

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, directing the Registry of this court to redact/mask the petitioner’s name wherever it appears in the records of CRL.M.C. No. 1559/2019 on the web-portal of this court, including from the orders passed in that matter.

¶20

Let the needful be done within 02 weeks.

¶21

The petition is disposed-of in the above terms.

¶22

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J

¶23

FEBRUARY 11, 2026 V.Rawat

¶24

W.P.(CRL) 3922/2025

¶25

Page 2 of 2

¶26

This is a digitally signed order.

¶27

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 19/02/2026 at 13:17:18

Abc v. State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abc v. State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

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

Gulshan Homes and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Munna Vs State NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Pulkit Goyal Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Rajesh Vs the State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Arun Das Vs the Commissioner of Police Delhi & Ors.

Sandeep Mohite Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Priyanka Rathore Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Rao Kunver Sain Vs Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

Rohit Vij Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Elochukwu Collins Okafor Vs the State of NCT of Delhi

Sachin @ Bhanja Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Sahil Vs State NCT of Delhi

Goldi Singh & Ors. Vs the State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.