AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 278 wordsGirish Kathpalia, J
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.
At the outset, learned counsel for respondent strongly objects to the petition on the basis of previous record.
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 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.
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.
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.
Therefore, the petition is dismissed.
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.