SHUBHAM KUMAR UTKARSH KHATANA vs STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY — CWP/11827/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 21st April 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 21-Apr-2026

CNR: PHHC010652282026

e-Filing Number

17-04-2026

Filing Number

CWP/23263/2026

Filing Date

18-Apr-2026

Registration No

CWP/11827/2026

Registration Date

18-Apr-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal

Coram

Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal

Category

63.13 - MISC. HARYANA ( 739 )

Judicial Branch

WRITS -I BRANCH

Decision Date

21-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 28-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHUBHAM KUMAR UTKARSH KHATANA

  2. 2.State of Haryana through Chief Secretary

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY

  2. 2.State of Haryana through Chief Secretary

  3. 3.State Information Commission Through its Chief Information Commissioner

  4. 4.Superintendent of Police, Rohtak

  5. 5.Public Information Officer

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 21-Apr-2026

    Mr. Justice Jagmohan BansalView PDF

    The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the petition seeking CCTV footage from Police Station Purani Sabzi Mandi, Rohtak. The court found that the petitioner already had a pending criminal miscellaneous case (CRM-M-54447-2025) challenging his arrest and held that he could approach the Magistrate for preservation or presentation of CCTV footage as the FIR was registered, making that the appropriate remedy rather than the High Court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/11827/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the petition seeking CCTV footage from Police Station Purani Sabzi Mandi, Rohtak. The court found that the petitioner already had a pending criminal miscellaneous case (CRM-M-54447-2025) challenging his arrest and held that he could approach the Magistrate for preservation or presentation of CCTV footage as the FIR was registered, making that the appropriate remedy rather than the High Court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case