Disposed¶18

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

Delhi HC10 Feb 2026W.P.(CRL)/500/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pulkit Goyal v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., W.P.(CRL) 500/2026 (Delhi High Court, Justice Prateek Jalan, 10.02.2026): accused residing in the Netherlands seeking to participate in investigation of FIR No. 401/2025 (Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, PS Hauz Khas) via video-conferencing; IO's requirement of one-day personal presence; directions for immediate video-conference participation upon IO notice and one week's notice before any physical appearance; petition and pending applications (CRL.M.A. 4565/2026, CRL.M.A. 4566/2026) disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to join the investigation immediately through video conference upon notice by the IO; where the IO requires physical presence, one week's notice to be given. All pending applications disposed of. ¶18

Pulkit Goyal Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, an accused in FIR No. 401/2025 currently residing in the Netherlands, may be permitted to join and participate in all further stages of the investigation through video-conferencing instead of physical presence.

¶10

Court's answer

The petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioner may join the investigation immediately through video conference upon notice being issued by the Investigating Officer.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

If the IO requires the petitioner's physical presence, one week's notice shall be given so that he can make necessary travel arrangements.

¶18

Key takeaways

Irrespective of the petitioner's professional commitments overseas, he remains an accused in the FIR, which necessitates investigation; his stated inability to attend physically for the next three months was not a reasonable stand.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(CRL) 500/2026, High Court of Delhi (Prateek Jalan, J.), order dated 10.02.2026 — The petitioner, an accused in FIR No. 401/2025 dated 08.12.2025 (Police Station Hauz Khas; Sections 498A/406/34, Indian Penal Code 1860) registered at the instance of his wife (respondent No.2) and presently residing in the Netherlands, sought to join and participate in all further stages of investigation through video-conferencing. The State (Sanjay Lao, SC(Crl.)) submitted that the IO required his personal presence for one day. Finding his inability to attend physically for three months not a reasonable stand, the Court disposed of the petition directing that the petitioner join the investigation immediately by video conference upon notice from the IO, and that one week's notice be given whenever his physical presence is required; all pending applications were disposed of.

¶1

$~69

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(CRL) 500/2026, CRL.M.A. 4565/2026 & CRL.M.A. 4566/2026 PULKIT GOYAL .....Petitioner

¶4

Through: Mr. Mahendra Mali, Advocate.

¶5

versus

¶6

THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, SC(Crl.) with rt. Abhinav Arya and Mr. Aryan Sachdeva, Advocates. SI Mohit Kumar, PS: Hauz Khas.

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

¶8

O R D E R % 10.02.2026 1. The petitioner is an accused in FIR No. 401/2025 dated 08.12.2025, registered at Police Station Hauz Khas, New Delhi, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶9

The FIR was registered at the instance of the petitioner’s wife, who is arrayed as respondent No.2 in this petition.

¶10

By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks a direction that he be permitted to “ join and participate in all further stages of investigation in FIR No. 0401/2025 through video-conferencing from his current place of residence in the Netherlands ”.

¶11

Mr. Sanjay Lao, learned Standing Counsel for the State, upon instructions from the Investigating Officer [“IO”], states that there are specific allegations against the petitioner in the FIR, and his personal presence is required for investigation. He submits that, at this stage, the

¶12

Page 1 of 2

¶13

W.P.(CRL) 500/2026

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

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 12/02/2026 at 14:19:23

¶16

IO requires the petitioner’s personal presence only for one day.

¶17

The matter was passed over to enable Mr. Mahendra Mali, learned counsel for the petitioner, to take instructions as to the date on which the petitioner can join the investigation physically for one day, even on a Saturday or Sunday. Upon instructions, he states that the petitioner cannot join the investigation physically for the next three months, which does not appear to be a reasonable stand at all. Irrespective of the petitioner’s professional commitments overseas, he remains an accused in the aforesaid FIR, which necessitates investigation.

¶18

The petition is, therefore, disposed of with the direction that the petitioner may join the investigation immediately through video conference upon notice being issued by the IO. If the IO requires his physical presence, one week’s notice shall be given, so that he can make necessary travel arrangements.

¶19

All pending applications are also disposed of.

¶20

PRATEEK JALAN, J

¶21

FEBRUARY 10, 2026 SS/JM/

¶22

Page 2 of 2

¶23

W.P.(CRL) 500/2026

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

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 12/02/2026 at 14:19:23

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pulkit Goyal v. the State of NCT of Delhi & 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

Manisha Chauhan Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Shiv Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Master Asif Alam Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Harshvardhan Goel Vs Union of India & Ors.

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

Pradeep Kumar & Ors. Vs State NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Bhagwan Singh Vs the State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Abc Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Shitiz Sharma and Anr. Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

X Vs State of NCT Delhi

Rajender and Anr. Vs the State (Nct of Delhi) and Anr.

Rajesh & Ors. Vs the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Baseer Ul Haq & Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Kuldeepak Mittal Vs Tycoon Brothers Pvt. Ltd.