The Supreme Court of India, on June 4 in New Delhi, strongly criticized the petitioner in the case of VINOD @ GANJA v. STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) | Miscellaneous Application No.1051/2025 in SLP(Crl) No.7285/2025, for filing a second application seeking an extension of time to surrender in a murder conviction, despite a previous order that had already addressed the same issue.
A Bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice SVN Bhatti was hearing the matter, which requested an additional three-week extension to surrender before jail authorities.
Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the extension was sought in light of an upcoming Delhi High Court hearing on July 10 regarding the petitioner’s plea for premature release. However, Justice Amanullah expressed strong displeasure, pointing out that a coordinate bench, led by Justice AS Oka, had already granted a three-week extension earlier.
Justice Amanullah remarked sharply, “How dare you file this? The coordinate bench headed by Justice Oka (inaudible) and you have the guts to file it during vacations?”
The coordinate bench had previously dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) on May 14,stating:
“We find no error on the part of the High Court when the prayer for continuation of furlough was rejected. However, we grant time of three weeks from today to the petitioner to surrender.”
Taking serious note of the repetition, the current Bench noted:
“Filing of the present case for the same relief is absolutely uncalled for, unwarranted and needs to be dealt with strictly.”
The Court dismissed the application for extension, directing the petitioner to surrender today itself. Additionally, the matter is to be listed again tomorrow, with the Court indicating that it “will consider what other order needs to be passed in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” The Court also rejected the AOR’s request to withdraw the application.
Background of the Case
The petitioner had previously filed a premature release petition before the Delhi High Court, having already served 14 years of actual sentence and 16 years including remission. Although the High Court issued a notice on the plea, it denied a stay on surrender by May 20.
The petitioner had been granted furlough on April 28, but after the High Court’s refusal to extend the surrender date, he approached the Supreme Court. The bench led by Justice AS Oka upheld the High Court’s decision, granting him three weeks to surrender. Despite this, the petitioner filed the current application for further extension, which the Court has now sternly rejected.