On June 4, the Supreme Court sharply criticised a murder convict who filed a second plea seeking more time to surrender despite the first extension having already been granted.

The matter was heard by a vacation bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and SVN Bhatti. The convict, through his counsel senior advocate Rishi Malhotra, sought an additional three-week extension to surrender, stating that the Delhi High Court is scheduled to hear his plea for premature release on July 10.

Read also: SCBA flags SCAORA encroachment on common bar issues, urges CJI to intervene

However, Justice Amanullah took strong objection to the conduct of the petitioner, saying:

“How dare you file this? Coordination Bench headed by Justice Oka… and you have the guts to file this during vacations?”

The Court highlighted that the Coordination Bench headed by Justice A.S. Oka had already addressed the issue. On May 14, that Bench had dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) with the following observation:

“We do not find any error on the part of the High Court when the prayer for continuation of furlough was rejected. However, we grant the petitioner three weeks from today to surrender.”

Read also: Supreme Court Refuses to Halt Incineration of Bhopal Gas Tragedy Waste at Pithampur Facility

Taking strong objection to the repeated request, the present Bench said:

“Filing the present case for the same relief is totally unwarranted, improper and needs to be dealt with strictly.”

The Court dismissed the fresh petition in its entirety and directed the petitioner to surrender on the same day, that is, June 4.

Additionally, the Court rejected the request by the Advocate-on-Record (AOR) to withdraw the petition.

The matter is now scheduled to be heard again on June 5. The bench said it would then:

“…consider what further orders are required to be passed in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

Read also: Tamil Nadu government moves Supreme Court against HC order on university vice-chancellor law

It is important to note that the petitioner had already served 14 years of his actual sentence and 16 years including remission. He had also approached the Delhi High Court seeking premature release. While the High Court issued a notice on the matter, it refused to stay his surrender, and directed him to report to jail by May 20.

Earlier, the petitioner was discharged by the jail authorities on April 28. After the High Court rejected his application for a stay, he approached the Supreme Court, where the first bench granted him an extension of 3 weeks. Despite this, he again approached the court seeking more time to surrender, leading to the current dismissal.

Case Details : VINOD @ GANJA v. STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) | Miscellaneous Application No.1051/2025 in SLP(Crl) No.7285/2025