In a writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court assailing the decision of the Sentence Review Board (SRB) whereby the petitioner’s request for premature release was declined, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula set aside the SRB’s decision and directed the State to process the case for consequential orders within two weeks.
The petitioner was a Bangladeshi national who was convicted by the Trial Court for offences under Sections 396/449, read with Section 34, of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, among other charges. In appeal, by a judgment dated 19-02-2014, the conviction of the petitioner was affirmed, but he was acquitted of the charges under Section 412 of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
Thereafter, the petitioner was repatriated to Bangladesh to serve the remaining sentence, and as per the commutation roll, he had served 21 years, 5 months, and 7 days of actual incarceration on 18-01-2026 and 27 years, 1 month, and 12 days with remission. In 2024, the SRB declined the petitioner’s request for premature release, but this Court set aside the decision and directed the case to be reconsidered.
Keeping in mind the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, and the 2004 policy, the Court stated that, in the category of heinous offences, consideration arises only after completion of 20 years, including remission, however, even in such cases, the policy clarifies that the period of incarceration, inclusive of remission, should not exceed 25 years.
The Court said that repatriation does not dilute the power of the appropriate government to suspend or remit sentences and stated that the question to be decided in the present matter was whether the SRB had undertaken the evaluative exercise mandated by the 2018 Rules and 2004 policy. It was stated that the policy does not permit the SRB to treat the label of the offence as a veto that makes the rest of the enquiry redundant, and that the Rules require the SRB decision to be a speaking one.
Further, the Court stated that a conclusion without an intelligible rationale disables scrutiny and breeds arbitrariness and that in matters of premature release, the circumstances of the offence, antecedents, conduct in custody, etc., are not mere formalities, but the foundation of the evaluative exercise. The Court stated that in the present matter, the SRB had recited the nature of the offence and moved to a conclusion on public interest in a single leap. It was said that the decision was unsupported by any antecedents and that a conclusion stated as a possibility is not a reason for denial of release.
The Court noted that the SRB had relied on a police report indicating that the petitioner’s address in Delhi could not be verified and stated that the same was not an assessment of risk. It was stated that the SRB had also treated ‘non-recommendation by police authority’ as a weighty adverse factor without undertaking the balancing exercise demanded by the Rules.
The Court stated that the Policy and Rules proceed on the premise that even serious offenders may, after prolonged incarceration, become eligible for an executive decision made after due deliberation. It was also stated that remand was not the appropriate remedy in the present matter, as one remand had already been granted and it returned with the same infirmity.
It was stated that the gravity of the original crime cannot be the sole basis for denying premature release once the policy threshold is crossed. The Court held that the SRB’s refusal was unsustainable as an arbitrary exercise of discretion resting on conjecture and the gravity of the offence, contrary to the Policy and Rules.
Further, the Court stated that the repatriation arrangement does not stand in the way of relief and that the bilateral framework recognizes that the power to grant remission or commutation vests in the transferring State.
Thus, the Court allowed the petition and directed the Government of NCT of Delhi to process the case for issuance of consequential orders and to communicate the decision to the authorities concerned in Bangladesh through the Ministry of Home Affairs and External Affairs, within two weeks.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. Sarthak Maggon
For Respondent – Mr. Amit Tiwari (CGSC), Ms. Ayushi Srivastava, Mr. Ayush Tanwar, Mr. Kushagra Malik, Mr. Arpan Narwal, Ms. Kamakshi Sehgal
