Aslam vs State

ASLAM vs STATE

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Jan 14, 2026

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1253777

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1253777
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Prateek Jalan
Decided On: Jan 14, 2026
Case Number: W.P.(CRL)/125/2026
Subject: Right to Information

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Right to Information

Key legal issue: Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

ASLAM

Advocate Mr. Yugansh Mittal, Mr. Keshav

Respondent

STATE

Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, Mr. Arjit Sharma, Ms. Sakshi Jha

Excerpt

.....account of a medical exigency, which allegedly resulted in the issuance of the impugned punishment ticket. 3. per contra, mr. sanjeev bhandari, learned additional standingw.p.(crl) 125/2026 page 1 of 2 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 16/01/2026 at 13:41:07 counsel for the state, on instructions from the jail authorities, submits that no punishment ticket has, in fact, been issued against the petitioner. he submits that, upon consideration of the explanation furnished for the delay of three days in surrender, the petitioner was merely cautioned to remain careful in the future. it is further submitted that the petitioner has, even thereafter, been granted furlough. 4. in view of the aforesaid categorical submission made on behalf of the jail authorities that no punishment ticket exists on record, and that only a warning was administered to the petitioner, no further orders are required to be passed in the present writ petition. 5. accordingly, the writ petition, alongwith the pending application, stands disposed of. 6. it is clarified that in the event any adverse consequences arise in future on account of the said warning, it shall be open to the petitioner to approach this court, in accordance with law.prateek jalan, j january 14, 2026 ss/sd/w.p.(crl) 125/2026 page 2 of 2 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 16/01/2026 at 13:41:07

Full Judgment

$~133 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(CRL) 125/2026 & CRL.M.A. 1153/2026 ASLAM .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Yugansh Mittal, Mr. Keshav, Advocates.

versus

STATE .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC (Crl) with Mr. Arjit Sharma and Ms. Sakshi Jha, Advocates. SI Harsh Kumar.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

ORDER % 14.01.2026 1. By way of the present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, who is undergoing imprisonment for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], arising out of FIR No. 106/1998 registered at P.S. Nabi Karim, Delhi, challenges a purported “Punishment Ticket” dated 23.07.2024, which is stated to have been issued by the Jail Authorities. 2. Mr. Yugansh Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was released on furlough on 12.06.2024 for a period of three weeks. It is contended that the petitioner surrendered three days beyond the stipulated period on account of a medical exigency, which allegedly resulted in the issuance of the impugned punishment ticket. 3. Per contra, Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, learned Additional Standing

W.P.(CRL) 125/2026 Page 1 of 2 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 16/01/2026 at 13:41:07 Counsel for the State, on instructions from the Jail Authorities, submits that no punishment ticket has, in fact, been issued against the petitioner. He submits that, upon consideration of the explanation furnished for the delay of three days in surrender, the petitioner was merely cautioned to remain careful in the future. It is further submitted that the petitioner has, even thereafter, been granted furlough. 4. In view of the aforesaid categorical submission made on behalf of the Jail Authorities that no punishment ticket exists on record, and that only a warning was administered to the petitioner, no further orders are required to be passed in the present writ petition. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition, alongwith the pending application, stands disposed of. 6. It is clarified that in the event any adverse consequences arise in future on account of the said warning, it shall be open to the petitioner to approach this Court, in accordance with law.

PRATEEK JALAN, J JANUARY 14, 2026 SS/SD/

W.P.(CRL) 125/2026 Page 2 of 2 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 16/01/2026 at 13:41:07

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2026 Same Parties ASLAM vs STATE Same Subject Right to Information Same Judge Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Prateek Jalan