Parole Denied: Delhi High Court Rejects Petitioner’s Plea Due to Existing Marriage and Co-habitation with Live-In Partners

 Case Name:  Sonu Sonkar v. The Lt. Governor, Delhi & Ors 

Case No.: W.P.(CRL) 889/2024 & CRL.M.A. 13860/2024 

Dated: May 08, 2024 

Quorum: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma 



The petitioner, who is currently being held in Jail No. 8/9, Tihar Jail, Delhi, was found guilty under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the “IPC”) by the learned Trial Court in a judgement dated November 15, 2011. The petitioner was also fined Rs. 5,000 and sentenced to life in rigorous prison. On March 23, 2012, this Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal No. 1590/2011 that was submitted in opposition to the aforementioned judgement. According to the nominal roll, the petitioner in this case has not filed an SLP in the Hon’ble Apex Court to contest the judgement of this Court on 23.03.2012.  

Including a period of about 02 years and 09 months of remission, the petitioner’s case states that he has been in judicial custody for approximately 16 years and 10 months. He also claims that he has been married for three years, having tied the knot with Ms. T on January 10, 2021. The petitioner has allegedly been in judicial custody since then, which has prevented him from fully consummating his marriage to Ms. T. According to the record, which is annexed to the main writ petition, Ms. T applied to the correctional authorities on January 2, 2024, asking for the present petitioner to be released on parole solely on this basis.  

In addition, it is mentioned that Ms. T, the petitioner’s Pairokar, has filed the main writ petition, her Aadhaar card, and the rent agreement dated April 7, 2022, at which address she currently resides, along with the petitioner’s commitment to stay with her at the same address.  



  • Whether the petitioner is guilty of concealment of facts and not approaching the Courts with clean hands? 
  • Whether a ‘live-in partner’ will be covered under the definition of ‘family’ as provided under Rule 1201 of Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 for the purpose of grant of parole? 
  • Whether a convict is entitled to grant of parole on the ground of maintaining conjugal rights and procreation with his ‘live-in partner’, when he already has a legally wedded wife? 



  • Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Saving of inherent powers of High CourtNothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 
  • Section 302 of IPC- Punishment for Murder. Those who commit murder will be punished with life in prison or the death penalty, as well as a fine. 



The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Ms. T, the petitioner’s wife, has stated her desire to begin a family with the petitioner, Ms. T, has been denied the opportunity to bear children despite the fact that she has never broken the law. It is further maintained that denying his wife a conjugal contact will have a negative impact on her rights. It is further claimed that the petitioner’s capacity to uphold social connections will suffer if parole is denied.  

Additionally, it is said that the petitioner was freed from judicial custody on September 11, 2019 on the Honourable Lieutenant Governor’s advice, although he was taken into custody again in a new case, as a result of advice from the Honourable Lieutenant Governor. It says that the petitioner was granted bail in the said case. 

The petitioner further claims that he has previously been granted parole and furlough on multiple occasions, that he has never abused the freedoms bestowed upon him, and that he has always turned himself in on time to the jail authorities. According to the statement, on July 20, 2023, the petitioner was granted parole for ten days. The court noted that the petitioner’s wife is the pairokar in this case, and that the parole was given to him in order to care for her as she has no other carers.  

The petitioner further argues that in cases similar to this one, where the accused who have been granted parole and furlough have not abused the privileges, the courts have repeatedly granted parole on the grounds of upholding social ties and preserving marriage and family relationships. Thus, it is declared that the petitioner shall be allowed parole for a term of four weeks in order to consummate his marriage to his wife and to continue his social connections.  

It is also specified that the petitioner must provide care for his wife, Ms. T, and get funding for her medical needs. It is noted that the petitioner has filed two more writ petitions, with the numbers 2931/2023 and 1661/2023, asking for different remedy. These petitions are currently pending before this court and are scheduled to be listed on July 15, 2024.  



The respondent’s counsel argues that as Ms. T is not the petitioner’s wife, the learned ASC for the State opposes the current writ petition and claims it was filed on frivolous and false grounds. It is further indicated that the petitioner has not been formally separated from his first wife, Ms. A, as of yet, and that the petitioner is already married to this woman (name withheld from the judgement), according to the Status Report. This Court should thus not permit the petitioner to be granted parole on the grounds that he must consummate his relationship with his putative wife, Ms. T. 

Additionally, the petitioner argues that the allegations made in the application for the petitioner’s release on interim parole while the current writ petition is pending should be immediately rejected for the same reason: Ms. T, the petitioner’s purported second wife, is not the petitioner’s legally wedded wife, and during the investigation, she was unable to provide any documentation proving her marital status. As a result, it is urged that the current petition and the temporary application be denied. 



The petitioner has repeatedly requested parole or furlough from this court until the year 2019, among other reasons, including medical ones related to his wife’s illness, medical treatment, or surgery (Ms. A.). The court carefully noted this. which the parole had been sought by him. 

It is important to note that Ms. A. was the wife’s name as stated in both the petition and the medical treatment documents that were annexed to the petitions. This is relevant information because the petitioner in the aforementioned writ petitions had requested parole due to his wife’s illness.  

The petitioner was freed from jail on September 11, 2019, at the recommendation of the Sentence Review Board. This is also noted by the Court at this point. 

But on March 1, 2023, he was arrested once more because the Hon. Lt. Governor of the GNCTD had revoked his sentence through order, dated September 24, 2022. This was due to the petitioner’s alleged offence, for which a FIR with the number 539/2021 had been filed at Subzi Mandi Police Station in Delhi. The petitioner was accused of committing another crime, for which Section 307/34 of the Indian Penalties Code, and for which he had breached the terms and conditions of his early release. The petitioner has been under court supervision ever since. 

It’s interesting to note that while the petitioner had previously requested release in order to treat or have surgery for his wife Ms. A, the petitioner’s wife’s name was listed as Ms. T in this petition. By order dated July 20, 2023, 19 he was granted parole in the aforementioned petition for a term of 10 days. The petitioner also identifies Ms. T as his spouse, whom he wed on January 10, 2021, in this current plea. Nonetheless, the petitioner states that Ms. T is his second wife and live-in partner in the application for the issuance of temporary parole while the main petition is being considered.  

The petitioner, Mr. Sonkar, was the subject of a detailed discussion of his conduct in the preceding paragraph, the court decided. Through his pleadings in many writ petitions, he has misled and misled the courts by failing to disclose that Ms. T is his live-in partner rather than his lawfully wedded wife. Furthermore, the record shows that the petitioner is actually married to Ms. A, with whom he has three children. It is also not the petitioner’s case that he is divorced from Ms. A. Furthermore, the petitioner has not disclosed any of these facts to this Court through Mr. Sonkar.  

The court, finally, decided that given he already has a lawfully married wife and three children born outside of that union, the court determined that Mr. Sonkar is not eligible for parole due to his desire to procreate or continue a marital relationship with his second wife or live-in partner.  


“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.” 

Judgment reviewed by Riddhi S Bhora. 

Click to view judgment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *