$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 27.02.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 27.03.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 28.03.2026 + W.P.(CRL) 2829/2025, CRL.M.A. 30049/2025, CRL.M.A.

38732/2025 &CRL.M.A. 2042/2026 VARITA SONI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sarthak Maggon, Advocate.

versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rahul Tyagi, ASC (Crl)

for State with Mr. Sangeet Sibou, Advocate.

+ W.P.(CRL) 343/2026 VARITA SONI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sarthak Maggon, Advocate.

versus STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rahul Tyagi, ASC (Crl)

for State with Mr. Sangeet Sibou, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

JUDGMENT

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

1. By way of the captioned petitions – W.P. (Crl.) 2829/2025 and W.P. (Crl.) 343/2026 – the petitioner seeks grant of the first spell of furlough and grant of parole for a period of eight weeks, respectively, primarily on the ground that the petitioner‟s presence is required for the care and support of her children, as well as her aged mother, who is presently facing health-related difficulties.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is presently lodged in Central Jail No. 6, Tihar, New Delhi, undergoing a sentence of life imprisonment in connection with FIR No. 80/2007, registered at Police Station Dabri, Delhi in respect of which she was convicted for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereafter ‘IPC’] by the learned Trial Court. Her conviction was upheld by this Court in CRL.A. 928/2011 vide judgment dated 15.01.2013, and the Special Leave Petition (SLP) preferred by her was dismissed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court.

3. The nominal roll of the petitioner has been received and, upon perusal of the same, it is noted that the petitioner has remained in judicial custody for a period of 17 years and 11 months.

4. The case set out by the petitioner is that she is the mother of two daughters. It is stated that the younger daughter was born in the year 2018, while the petitioner was released on emergency parole. The husband of the petitioner unfortunately, passed away on 25.04.2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic. At present, the petitioner‟s elderly mother is looking after both daughters; however, she is suffering from various ailments and is not in a position to provide adequate care to them. The elder daughter has recently secured admission in Punjab Engineering College and, owing to her academic commitments, is also unable to take care of her younger sister. Consequently, the younger daughter is presently in need of the care, support, and companionship of her mother.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has undergone about 17 years and 11 months of actual incarceration and over 20 years of imprisonment including remission, and has never misused the liberty granted to her on earlier occasions. It is contended that the competent authority erred in rejecting her request for grant of first spell of furlough vide order dated 22.08.2025 on the ground of delayed surrender. It is submitted that the petitioner was released on furlough from 04.03.2024 to 19.03.2024, and her surrender was subsequently exempted by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court till 01.10.2024. On 01.10.2024, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court dismissed her petition, noting certain errors and concealments in a batch of similar matters, and directed the petitioners, including the present petitioner, to surrender forthwith. It is contended that the order was uploaded on 05.10.2024 and communicated to the petitioner only on 12.10.2024, and being a resident of Chandigarh, she required reasonable time to arrange travel and engage counsel. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner thereafter filed W.P.(Crl.) 3255/2024, wherein this Court directed consideration of her case for premature release on priority. It is further argued that, on legal advice and in view of extensions granted to similarly placed convicts, the p