Anju @Sonia @ Baby Vs the State of NCT of Delhi

Petitioner seeks extension of furlough for a period of 40 days in case FIR No. 69/2007 of PS M. S. Park for offence under Section 364/365/392/ 328/302/120B IPC.

¶12

At the outset, learned counsel for respondent strongly objects to the petition on the basis of previous record.

¶13

It appears that the petitioner was granted relief of furlough by the competent authority of jail on 21.01.2026 for a period of three weeks and she was released on furlough on 30.01.2026. The petitioner was scheduled

¶14

W.P.(CRL) 604/2026

¶15

Page 1 of 2 pages

¶16

GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.04.13 05:24:30 -07'00'

¶17

Signature Not Verified

¶18

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL YADAV Signing Da te:1 3.04.2026 17:28:44

¶19

to surrender on 21.02.2026 but she filed the present petition. On the very first date (20.02.2026) before a coordinate bench of this Court, the petitioner sought and was allowed extension of furlough till 02.03.2026 despite a strong objection from State. But the petitioner did not surrender on 02.03.2026. Rather, till date petitioner has not surrendered as per learned counsel for State on the basis of instructions received by him from jail authorities.

¶20

On being called upon to address arguments, learned counsel for petitioner expresses inability solely on the ground that petitioner is not in touch with him. That cannot be a ground for the counsel not to address arguments, if the counsel considers himself as officer of the court.

¶21

The fact remains that despite having been granted extension vide order dated 20.02.2026, the petitioner has not surrendered till date. That being so, there is no reason for this Court to grant any further indulgence.

¶22

Therefore, the petition is dismissed.

¶23

Copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial court to initiate process for arrest of the petitioner in order to ensure that she faces sentence.

¶24

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec GIRISH 45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1 KATHPALIA 5570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff80 1e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.04.13 05:24:18 -07'00'

¶25

GIRISH KATHPALIA (JUDGE)

¶26

APRIL 13, 2026/ dr

¶27

W.P.(CRL) 604/2026

¶28

Page 2 of 2 pages

¶29

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL YADAV Signing Da te:1 3.04.2026 17:28:44

Anju @Sonia @ Baby v. the State of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anju @Sonia @ Baby v. the State of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd Latif Vs the State of NCT of Delhi

Rajender @ Kallu Vs State Gnct of Delhi

Dhanavati and Ors. Vs State (Nctof Delhi) and Anr.

Rocky Khatri and Ors. Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Abhishek Anand Vs Union of India through Its Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs & Ors.

Anand Bhardwaj Vs the Commissioner of Delhi Police & Ors.

Raminder Kaur Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Kamruddin @ Kamru Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Jai Prakash Vs State NCT of Delhi

Rahul (through Pairokaar) Vs State through Io & Anr.

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Prakash Pal and Ors. Vs State of Gnct of Delhi and Anr.

Rishabh Gehlot Vs State (Nct of Delhi)