W.P.(CRL)/2060/2025 of MUKESH KUMAR RANA Vs THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.

Court: Delhi High Court
Decision date: 2025-07-15
Bench: HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

Parties

MUKESH KUMAR RANA (PETITIONER)
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS (RESPONDENT)

Cites (1)

BAIL APPLN./3534/2024 of RAHUL Vs THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI (2024)

Statutes cited (2)

constitution of india, 528 (1950)
constitution of india, article-226 (1950)

Full text

solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus

Show all Body

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(CRL) 2060/2025

MUKESH KUMAR RANA

.....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Akarsh Gupta, Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Mr. R.K. Gupta, Ms. Aparna Gupta, Advs.

versus

THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel (CRL) with Ms. Priyam Agarwal & Mr. Aryan Sachdeva, Advs. Ms. Shilpa Singh, SPP, Dy SP Sanjeev, IO & Mr. Shantanu Singh Chandel, Adv.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASADHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

O R R15.07.2025

1.The present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is in the nature of habeas corpus seeking direction to the Respondents/State to trace and produce the missing daughter of the Petitioner, who is stated to have been missing since 23.05.2025.

2.The Petition states that the Petitioner suspects that his daughter is in the illegal custody of Respondent No. 3- Mr. Mohit Kumar. is in the illegal custody of Respondent No. 3- Mr. Mohit Kumar.

3.The daughter of the Petitioner has been traced and produced

before the Court.

4.This Court has interacted with the Petitioner’s daughter, who was born on 17.05.2007, and is major. We have also interacted with Respondent No.3, and it is stated by both the Petitioner’s daughter as well as Respondent No.3 that they got married on 23.05.2025 and are happily living together.

5.This Court has interacted with the Petitioner and his wife as well.

6.In view of the fact that the daughter of the Petitioner, who is major, has appeared before this Court and has stated that she is not illegally detained by Respondent No.3, and after satisfying ourselves, this Court is of the opinion that nothing survives in the present habeas corpus petition.

7.Accordingly, this petition, along with the pending application(s), if any, is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.JULY 15, 2025/v/va