W.P.(CRL) 3429/2024 Page 1 of 22 pages

$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment reserved on: 17.05.2025

Judgmen t pronounced on: 11.06.2025

+ W.P.(CRL) 3429/2024 & CRL.M.A. 1394/2025

VIKRAM YADAV .....Petitioner

Through: Ms. Arundhati Katju, Sr. Advocate

with Mr. Ali Chaudhary, Ms. Shristi

Borthakur and Mr. Abuzar Ali,

Advocates

versus

STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC for State

with Mr. Sushant Bali, Ms. Avita

Bhandari, Mr. Arjit Sharma and Mr.

Nikunj Bindal, Advocates with

Inspector Shrichand and SI Anil, PS

Seemapuri

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

J U D G M E N T

GIRISH KATHPALIA, J.:

Kautilya’s Arthshastra makes references to the element of reformatory policy

of sentencing that later came to be known as “remission”. Release of

convicted prisoners on sympathetic grounds before completion of the term of

imprisonment imposed on them was significant part of the ancient Hindu

jurisprudence. Kautilya advocated for periodic exercise of premature

W.P.(CRL) 3429/2024 Page 2 of 22 pages

release of prisoners, who were young or very old or ailing and those who

maintained good conduct in prison. The Vth pillar edict of Delhi Topra

makes reference to a statement of the emperor Asoka that he had let off

prisoners 25 times during a span of 26 years. The Ist separate edict at

Dhauli refers to an address by king Asoka to his judicial officers in the

capital, calling them upon to ensure that not a single innocent is subjected to

unnecessary pain or imprisonment. There existed a conscious and consistent

thought amongst ancient thinkers, aimed at reformation of criminals in

order to achieve larger goal of peace in society by minimization of crime

and criminogenic tendencies. Later, thinkers across globe nurtured the idea

that reformatory policies are more productive than deterrent and retributory

approach to crime and criminal. To paraphrase and quote the famous Irish

author and poet Oscar Wilde: “Every saint has a past and every sinner has

a future”. And thoughts of Fyodor Dostoevsky (Crime and Punishment):

“Guilt, conscience, and the possibility of moral rebirth reside in every

human being”. Every darkness carries a hope for light, and every light

holds a memory of darkness. The track connecting this duality of darkness

and light is the course track of reformative sentencing. Every wrong

deserves a consequence; but every consequence must have a limit, lest it

became wrong in itself. The present decision is rooted in this philosophy.

1. The petitioner, having suffered incarceration for more than 18 years

without remission and more than 21 years with remission, consequent upon

his conviction in cases FIR No.611/2001 and FIR No.261/2001 of PS

Badarpur and PS Seemapuri respectively for offences under Sections

302/120B/364A/384/186/353/307/419 IPC, for which he was awarded

imprisonment for life (and different terms, which were to run concurrently)

by the Trial Court and upheld by a Division Bench of this court, seeks

premature release. Upon service of notice, the respondent State entered

W.P.(CRL) 3429/2024 Page 3 of 22 pages

appearance through learned Additional Standing Counsel (ASC), who filed

multiple status reports at different stages of arguments before predecessor

benches. On behalf of petitioner also, written submissions and documents at

different stages were filed. With consent of both sides, I heard learned

Senior Counsel for petitioner and learned ASC for State in special hearing

organised for a few cases on a Saturday.

2. The petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus directing his premature

release from prison on the basis of policy framed by the Government of

NCT of Delhi in the year 2004, as he has already undergone prison sentence

for a period more than 18 years without remission and more than 21 years

with remission. Earlier, the Sentence Review Board (SRB) took up

petitioner’s case for premature release on multiple occasions and rejected the

same on 06.08.2020, 11.12.2020, 25.06.2021, 21.10.2021 and 30.06.2023.

Thereafter, the petitioner along with others challenged the decision dated

30.06.2023 of SRB through a writ petition bearing no. W.P.(CRL)

1268/2024 before this court, and this court held that case of the petitioner

has to be governed by the policy of 2004 so the respondent State was

directed to consider case of the petitioners of that writ petition (which

included the present petitioner) afresh qua their premature release. Feeling

aggrieved by the said order of this court, the petitioner filed Special Leave

Petition, bearing SLP (Criminal) No.6839/2024, which was disposed of as

withdrawn granting liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings

before this court. Hence, the present petition.

W.P.(CRL) 3429/2024 Page 4 of 22 pages

3. The petitioner specifically disclosed in the petition that during the

period of incarceration, vide order dated 21.09.2010 in W.P.(CRL) 919/2010,

he was granted one month parole from 27.10.2010 to 27.11.2010 by this

court, but instead of surrendering on 28.11.2010, he absconded and on

05.06.2015, he was re-arrested in connection with two new cases, though

later, on 12.10.2018 in those two new cases, he was acquitted. Thereafter,

successive applications of petitioner for premature release were rejected on

the dates mentioned above. In his petition, the petitioner has extracted the

Minutes of Meetings of SRB whereby his successive applications for

premature release were rejected, basically on the ground of gravity and

perversity of crime and jumping of parole followed by re-arrest in two new

criminal cases. However, thereafter, by way of successive orders of this

court in different writ petitions, the petitioner was released on furlough and

he duly surrendered after expiry of the release period. Lastly, the petitioner

surrendered on 01.10.2024 in compliance with order dated 01.10.2024 of the

Supreme Court passed in his SLP (Criminal) No.6839/2024. Since then, the

petitioner remains confined in jail.

4. In their multiple status reports filed at different stages before different

predecessor benches and ultimately before this bench, the respondent State

opposed premature release of the petitioner, extracting the Minutes of

Meetings of the SRB, whereby his requests for premature release were

rejected. Referring to the said status reports, the learned ASC justified the

rejection of premature release of petitioner largely on the ground of conduct

of the petitioner in jumping parole, whereafter he was re-arrested after five

W.P.(CRL) 3429/2024 Page 5 of 22 pages

years in two new cases. In the latest status report, learned ASC also referred

extensively to the judicial precedents, which were cited again during

arguments, basically to contend limited scope of interference by the High

Court in such matters.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner took me through records,

contending that this is a fit case to exercise writ powers and direct premature

release of petitioner. Taking me through the minutes of different meetings of

the SRB (as extracted in the petition itself), learned Senior Counsel

contended that there was complete non-application of mind by the SRB

insofar as all those minutes of meetings are copy-paste repetitions, ignoring

the current developments. It was argued by learned Senior Counsel that one

single default of jumping parole in the year 2010 ought not to be considered

now after 15 years in order to deny liberty to the petitioner. Learned Senior

Counsel for petitioner also took me through a number of Commendation

Certificates issued by jail and other authorities to the petitioner and

contended that the same reflect gradual reformation of the petitioner across

past 10 years. It was also argued on behalf of petitioner that his case was not

considered according to the parameters laid down in the policy of 2004

despite judgment dated 25.04.2024 of a coordinate bench of this court in the

case of Bijender & Ors. vs State, W.P.(CRL) 1268/2024, whereby the earlier

decision of SRB dated 30.06.2023 on the basis of the previous Social

Investigation Report was set aside.

W.P.(CRL) 3429/2024 Page 6 of 22 pages

6. On the other hand, learned ASC supported the impugned decision of

the SRB and laid heavy emphasis on the nature of the offence for which the

petitioner is facing life imprisonment. As regards the Commendation

Certificates, learned ASC argued that the same only make the prisoner

eligible for consideration and cannot be a ground to grant premature release.

Further, learned ASC also referred to the Nominal Rolls of the petitioner,

pointing out that even while facing the life imprisonment, the petitioner got

involved in offences under Section 307 IPC and under the Arms Act when

he was on parole. Learned ASC also addressed on the limited scope of

interference by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in

order to analyze decision of SRB, which is a technical committee. Learned

ASC submitted that in case this court finds the impugned decisions of SRB

not sustainable, the matter may be remanded for reconsideration in the next

meeting of SRB.

7. In support of their respective arguments, both sides referred to certain

judicial precedents.

7.1 Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner in support of her arguments

referred to the judgments in the cases titled as Vijay Kumar Shukla vs State

NCT of Delhi and Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7805; Gurvinder Singh vs

State (Govt. of NCT) of Delhi and Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4721; Hari

Singh vs State of NCT of Delhi and Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7118;

Sushil Sharma vs State, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 13277; State of Haryana

and Ors. vs Jagdish, (2010) 4 SCC 216; Joseph vs State of Kerala and

W.P.(CRL) 3429/2024 Page 7 of 22 pages

Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1211; Bijender and Ors. vs State of Govt. of

NCT of Delhi, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3296; and Laxman Naskar vs Union

of India, (2000) 2 SCC 595.

7.2 On the other hand, learned ASC for State in support of his arguments

referred to the judgments in the cases titled as Vijay Kumar Shukla vs State

NCT of Delhi and Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7805; Gurvinder Singh vs

State (Govt. of NCT) of Delhi and Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4721; Hari

Singh vs State of NCT of Delhi and Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7118;

Ram Chander vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anr., (2022) 12 SCC 52;

Laxman Naskar (Life Convict) vs State of W.B. and Anr., (2000) 7 SCC

626; Shashi Shekhar @ Neeraj vs State of the NCT of Delhi & Ors, 2016

SCC OnLine Del 6284; Union of India vs V. Sriharan alias Murugan &

Ors., (2016) 7 SCC 1; and Bilkis Yakub Rasool vs Union of India, 2024

SCC OnLine SC 25.

7.3 Thence, the judgments in the cases titled as Vijay Kumar Shukla

(supra); Gurvinder Singh (supra) and Hari Singh (supra) were referred to

by both sides.

7.4 In the case of Vijay Kumar Shukla (supra), referred to by both sides

this court held thus:

“29. Each time the SRB rejects the plea, in a pithily drafted,

cursorily articulated proforma paragraph, not only is each of

the rejections almost a copy-paste of an earlier rejection, but

it lacks any embellishment or modicum of assessment or

reasoning beyond the proforma factors on which SRB has

W.P.(CRL) 3429/2024 Page 8 of 22 pages

right to reject. What is, therefore, before this Court are a set

of previous rejections and the impugned rejection of 2023

parroting the same reasons.

30. The Court, therefore, faces two options: either to be

persuaded by these repeated rejections and conclude that

there must be a rationale underlying the SRB's consistent

stance, or to evaluate whether the SRB has genuinely applied

logic, rationality, reasonableness, and proper application of

mind in accordance with the rules and guidelines it is bound to

follow. The second option is prompted by the petitioner's 26-

year-long journey being incarcerated, as noted above, which

reveals an apparent and significant discrepancy between that

journey and the reasons cited by the SRB for its rejections.

There seems to be an apparent and obvious mismatch between

the elements of that journey and the reasons for the rejection

by the SRB.

31. The underlying theme, fulcrum and raison d'être of

premature release are fortunately well articulated in Rule

1244 Chapter XX, of DPR (which is extracted in paragraph 17

above). Premature release is achieving a balance in ensuring

‘reformation, rehabilitation, and integration into society of

an offender on one hand and protection of society on the

other’. For the purposes of this assessment, as stated by the

Rule, is the conduct behaviour and performance of prisoners

while in prison. The SRB is undoubtedly a recommendary

body as per Rule 1247 (as extracted in paragraph 17 above).

The body is constituted by Members of the Executive, District

Judiciary, Police and Prison Authorities. The SRB, in

achieving this recommendation, exercises ‘discretion’.

32. However, the exercise of this discretion is to be based on

relevant factors, which inter alia are whether the convict has

lost his propensity for committing crime considering his

overall conduct, possibility of reclaiming the convict as a

useful member of society; and socio-economic condition of the

convict’s family.

33. These aspects form part of a comprehensive note prepared

by the Superintendent of Prisons as per Rule 1256(ii)

(extracted in paragraph 17 above), recommendation by

Deputy Commissioner of Police. Superintendent of Police, as

per Rule 1256(iv); report of Chief Probation Officer as per

Rule 1256(v). On the basis of these three reports, the Inspector

General (Prisons) is to make his recommendation. All this is

finally funnelled to the SRB, which has to apply guidelines,

W.P.(CRL) 3429/2024 Page 9 of 22 pages

general or special, laid down by the Government or by the

Courts. A cautionary note has been ensconced in Rule 1257(c)

for the SRB to not decline premature release ‘merely on the

ground that the police have not recommended this release”, as

also not rejecting it merely because it has been rejected on one

or more occasions earlier. The decision of the SRB is

mandated to be through ‘speaking order in writing’.

37. Even if one were to ignore the brevity of articulation by

the SRB, as merely for administrative convenience, there's

complete opacity in whether the cautionary elements of Rule

1257(c) which ought to stare in the face of SRB, previous

rejections, lack of police recommendation and welfare of the

prisoner were considered and used as reasons ultimately

leading to a negative recommendation.

xxxxx

43. In Sushil Sharma (supra), Division Bench of this Court

categorically held that SRB cannot state that they are not

bound by the rules and guidelines to which they themselves

owe their existence. Therefore, there is a necessity for due and

proper application of mind, legal justification and lawful

sanction.

44. The Supreme Court in Joseph (supra) highlighted

“typecasting convicts through guidelines which are too

flexible based crime committed in distant past resulting in a

danger of overlooking the reformative potential of each

individual convict”. In this regard, the Court noted that

insisting on continued punishment without considering the

transformation of a prisoner undermines rationality and

fairness. Persistence in penalizing someone who has

reformed and no longer aligns with their past actions

disregards the reality of personal change and violates Article

14 of the Constitution. A rigid adherence to guidelines that

ignore positive conduct and rehabilitation perpetuates

despair, denies the value of good behaviour, and reflects an

unyielding societal harshness, negating the very principle of

reformative justice...

45. As rightly pointed out, “propensity for crime” cannot be a

random subjective assessment but has to be based on

objective factors. The objective factors are quite well

ensconced in the eligibility conditions, of a convict being in a

semi-open prison and even more stringent requirements to

qualify for an open prison. If those factors are met in this

case, the committing to a semi-open/open prison is done, and

W.P.(CRL) 3429/2024 Page 10 of 22 pages

the ‘report card’ of the convict continues to be good, in the

opinion of the Court would be supremely critical factors that

ought to imbue any assessment for premature release.”

(emphasis supplied)

7.5 In the case of Gurvinder Singh (supra), relied upon by both sides, this

court held thus:

“9. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the SRB while

rejecting the premature release of the petitioner has only

considered- (i) the facts and circumstances under which the

crime was committed, (ii) the gravity, perversity and nature of

the crime, (iii) unsatisfactory jail conduct, and (iv) the fact

that the police opposed the premature release. However, it is

noted that the SRB has to consider other relevant factors as

enumerated in Para 3.1 of the policy dated 16.07.2004 and

Rule 1251 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 apart from

considering the circumstances in which the crime was

committed, as well as, the gravity, perversity and nature of

crime.

xxxx

11. Likewise, Rule 1251 of Delhi Prison Rules reads thus:

1251. Every convicted prisoner whether male or female

undergoing sentence of life imprisonment and covered

by the provisions of Section 433A Cr. P.C. shall be

eligible to be considered for premature release from the

prison immediately after serving out the sentence of 14

years of actual imprisonment i.e. without the remissions.

It is, however, clarified that completion of 14 years in

prison by itself would not entitle a convict to automatic

release from the prison and the Sentence Review Board

shall have the discretion to recommend to release a

convict, at an appropriate time in all cases considering

the circumstances in which the crime was committed and

other relevant factors like:—

a) Whether the convict has lost his potential for

committing crime considering his overall conduct

in Jail during the 14 year incarceration.

b) The possibility of reclaiming the convict as a

useful member of the society and

c) Socio-Economic condition of the Convict's

W.P.(CRL) 3429/2024 Page 11 of 22 pages

family.

12. However, in the impugned order, there is no discussion on

the aspects viz., (i) whether the convict has lost his potential

for committing crime considering his overall conduct in jail

during the 14 year incarceration, (ii) the possibility of

reclaiming the convict as a useful member of the society, and

(iii) the socio-economic condition of the convict's family. It is

settled law that if the administrative power has been exercised

without considering, or without application of mind to, the

relevant factors, the exercise of power will be regarded

manifestly erroneous. This being the position, the impugned

order cannot be sustained.”

7.6 Another judicial precedent relied upon by both sides was in the case

of Hari Singh (supra), wherein this court held thus:

“12. The factors for consideration while deciding the

application of a convict for premature release, as laid down by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxman Naskar (supra) and

which have been reiterated in State of Haryana v. Jagdish,

(2010) 4 SCC 216, are:-

(i) whether the offence affects the society at large;

(ii) the probability of the crime being repeated;

(iii) the potential of the convict to commit crimes in

future;

(iv) if any fruitful purpose is being served by keeping the

convict in prison; and

(v) the socio-economic condition of the convict's family.

15. It is well established that when the convict has undergone

substantial and long period of incarceration, the eventual

purpose of imprisonment, in all circumstances, including the

most serious offences, is reformative and not retributive. To

deny the benefit of remission to a convict, solely on the basis

of the nature of crime committed, and without appreciating

other parameters including but not limited to the convict's

age, health and socio-economic condition and family

relations, his post-conviction conduct, jail conduct etc.,

would not serve the ends of justice. It is of ultimate

importance that the societal interest must be balanced with the

rights of the convict and resorting to mechanical and clerical

approach in dealing with the application of premature release

where the convicts have undergone long periods of

W.P.(CRL) 3429/2024 Page 12 of 22 pages

incarceration which will result in defeating the said purpose.”

(emphasis supplied)

7.7 In the case of Laxman Naskar (supra) the Supreme Court held thus:

“3. It is a settled position of law that life sentence is nothing

less than lifelong imprisonment and by earning remissions a

life convict does not acquire a right to be released

prematurely; but if the Government has framed any rule or

made a scheme for early release of such convicts then those

rules or schemes will have to be treated as guidelines for

exercising its power under Article 161 of the Constitution and

if according to the government policy/instructions in force at

the relevant time the life convict has already undergone the

sentence for the period mentioned in the policy/instructions,

then the only right which a life convict can be said to have

acquired is the right to have his case put up by the prison

authorities in time before the authorities concerned for

considering exercise of power under Article 161 of the

Constitution. When an authority is called upon to exercise its

powers under Article 161 of the Constitution that will have to

be done consistently with the legal position and the

government policy/instructions prevalent at that time.”

8. Falling back to the present case, there is no dispute that as elaborately

laid down by the coordinate bench of this court in the judgment of Bijender

(supra) guided by the judicial precedents as cited above, case of the present

petitioner for premature release has to be considered in accordance with the

policy of 2004. According to petitioner, the SRB did not adhere to the said

policy, while according to the respondent, the policy was strictly adhered to.

9. For the sake of convenience, the relevant portion of the policy of 2004

is extracted below:

“Eligibility for premature release:-

3.1 Every convicted prisoner whether male or female undergoing

W.P.(CRL) 3429/2024 Page 13 of 22 pages

sentence of life imprisonment and covered by the provisions of Section

433A CrPC shall be eligible to be considered for premature release

from the prison immediately after serving out the sentence of 14 years

of actual imprisonment i.e. without the remissions. It is however,

clarified that completion of 14 years in prison by itself would not

entitle a convict to automatic release from the prison and the Sentence

Review Board shall have the discretion to release a convict, at an

appropriate time in all cases considering the circumstances in which

the crime was committed and other relevant factors like:-

a) Whether the convict has lost his potential for committing

crime considering his overall conduct in jail during the 14 years

incarceration;

b) The possibility of reclaiming the convict as a useful member

of the society; and

c) Socio-economic condition of the convict's family.

Such convict as stand convicted of a capital offence are prescribed

the total period of imprisonment to be undergone including remission,

subject to a minimum of 14 years of actual imprisonment before the

convict prisoner is released. Total period of incarceration including

remission in such cases should ordinarily not exceed 20 years.

Certain categories of convicted prisoners undergoing life sentence

would be entitled to be considered for premature release only after

undergoing imprisonment for 20 years including remissions. The

period of incarceration inclusive of remissions even in such cases

should not exceed 25 years. Following categories are mentioned in

this connection.

a) Convicts who have been imprisoned for life for murder in

heinous crimes such as murder with rape, murder with dacoity,

murder involving an offence under the Protection of Civil Rights

Act 1955, murder for dowry, murder of a child below 14 years

of age, multiple murder, murder committed after conviction

while inside the jail, murder during parole, murder in a terrorist

incident, murder in smuggling operation, murder of a public

servant on duty.

b) Gangsters, contract killers, smugglers, drug traffickers,

racketeers awarded life imprisonment for committing murders

as also the perpetrators of murder committed with pre-

meditation and with exceptional violence or perversity.

c) Convicts whose death sentence has been commuted to life

imprisonment.

W.P.(CRL) 3429/2024 Page 14 of 22 pages

3.2 All other convicted male prisoners not covered by section 433A

CrPC undergoing the sentence of life imprisonment would be entitled

to be considered for premature release after they have served at least

14 years of imprisonment inclusive of remission but only after

completion of 10 years actual imprisonment i.e., without remissions.

3.3 The female prisoners not covered by section 433A CrPC

undergoing the sentence of life imprisonment would be entitled to be

considered for premature release after they have served at least 10

years of imprisonment inclusive of remissions but only after

completion of 7 years actual imprisonment i.e., without remissions.

3.4 Cases of premature release of persons undergoing life

imprisonment before completion of 14 years of actual imprisonment

on grounds of terminal illness or old age etc. can be dealt with under

the provisions of Art. 161 of the Constitution of India”

10. The relevant portion of the Minutes of Meeting dated 30.06.2023 of

SRB, which led to the present petition are extracted below:

“138. VIKRAM YADAV S/o SH. INDER SINGH — AGE-42 YRS.

Vikram Yadav S/o Sh. Inder Singh is undergoing life imprisonment in

case FIR No.611/2001 & 261/2001 U/S 302/120-B/364-

A/384/186/353/307/419 IPC, P.S. Badarpur & Seema Puri (clubbed

together) for murder of a person during abduction for ransom.

The convict has undergone:

Imprisonment of 16 years, 07 months and 03 days in actual and 19

years, 03 months and 15 days with remission. He has availed Parole

02 times. He Jumped parole w.e.f. 28.11.2010 and was re-arrested in

other 02 cases on 05.06.2015.

Conclusion:

Reports received from Police and Social Welfare Departments for

premature release of convict and after taking into account all the facts

and circumstances of the case i.e. murder of a person after abduction

for ransom, the gravity and perversity of the crime, jumping of parole

and re-arrest in two other criminal cases, shown non-reformative

attitude, strong objection by Police, possibility of committing crime

again etc., the Board unanimously REJECTS premature release of

convict Vikram Yadav S/o Inder Singh at this stage.”

W.P.(CRL) 3429/2024 Page 15 of 22 pages

11. Before proceeding further, it would be pertinent to note that the

operative minutes of meeting dated 30.06.2023 are virtually copy-paste of

the minutes of earlier meetings dated 06.08.2020, 11.12.2020, 25.06.2021,

and 21.10.2021. The composition of the SRB would make this court assume

that each matter is discussed threadbare in such meetings. But unfortunately,

the manner in which minutes of these meetings were worded, the allegation

of non-application of mind cannot be brushed aside. Every instrumentality of

the State, be it judicial or administrative, while deciding an issue must author

the decision in such manner that deciphers what worked in the mind of the

authority concerned. The court must have material before it to examine as to

whether there was proper application of mind or not. In the present case,

there is nothing on record to suggest proper application of mind by the SRB.

12. Another important aspect is that quite often, the SRB members

appointed in their official capacity do not personally attend the meeting and

rather send their representatives, owing to their other heavy official

engagements. The profile of members of the SRB is such that it is practically

not possible for all of them to gather and scrutinize so many cases dealing

with human attitudes and personality. The Chairman of the SRB being the

Minister and members of SRB being the Principal Secretary (Home) and

Secretary (Law, Justice and Legislative Affairs), they opting to send their

representatives owing to their overall heavy workload cannot be faulted

with. Same is the status qua the District & Sessions Judge.

W.P.(CRL) 3429/2024 Page 16 of 22 pages

13. The SRB deals with human beings, that too those who have been

deprived of liberty across a long span of time on account of their aggression

which led to criminality. The approach of the SRB ought to be reformation

oriented and not a routine disposal/statistics dominated exercise. The

composition of SRB needs to be re-examined by the authorities concerned so

as to make the exercise of sentence review meaningful and commensurate to

the laudable philosophy of reformation of criminal. It is suggested that the

composition of SRB must include the judicial officer concerned (or her/his

successor) who sentenced the prisoner under consideration; that judicial

officer would better contribute after examining the entire trial and sentencing

records. It is further suggested that composition of SRB must include an

eminent sociologist and a criminologist with missionary zeal and sensitivity

towards reformation of the prisoner under consideration. Another vital

component of SRB can be the concerned Jail Superintendent, who had the

best opportunity to watch the reformative growth or otherwise of the

prisoner concerned from close quarters. In order to ensure meaningful

exercise of sentence review, the composition of SRB should be based on

nexus between the jail performance of the prisoner and the job profile of the

member concerned, instead of just high official designation of the member.

14. As regards application of mind, keeping in view sensitivity of the

decision to allow or deny premature release to a prisoner, the application of

mind has to be such that reflects application of reasonable and logical

parameters. A comparative inventory of aggravating and mitigating factors

must be taken on record by SRB in order to arrive at its decision. The

W.P.(CRL) 3429/2024 Page 17 of 22 pages

decision, so arrived, must have a reasonable connect with the inventory,

aimed at achieving meaningful reformation. In this regard, SRB should also

make a graded response in the sense that depending upon the scale of

observed reformation of the prisoner, if the stage is considered a bit early for

premature release, the prisoner can be shifted initially to semi-open prison,

followed by open prison. That gradual movement would give a taste of

liberty to the prisoner, which would encourage him to push for his

reformation and that would be a meaningful punishment. Not just this, SRB

can also consider premature release of the convict/prisoner with necessary

directions in the nature of surveillance over specific period, directing the

prisoner/convict to report before the local police on a weekly basis for

specific period. The binary of grant or denial of premature release has to be

discarded.

15. To recapitulate in the present case, the premature release has been

declined to the petitioner on the grounds of gravity and perversity of the

crime (abduction for ransom and murder); jumping of parole and re-arrest in

two other criminal cases, showing non reformative attitude; strong objection

by police; and possibility of committing crime again. It would be apposite to

examine each of these grounds individually.

16. Of course, abduction for ransom, followed by murder is indeed

gruesome and needs to be dealt with sternly. But then, one also cannot

ignore that the said crime took place way back in the year 2001 and the

learned trial court, by way of detailed order on sentence found it not a case

W.P.(CRL) 3429/2024 Page 18 of 22 pages

which would call for imposing death penalty, so life imprisonment was

imposed. As mentioned above, the petitioner has already undergone the

sentence of incarceration for more than 18 years without remission and more

than 21 years with remission. Not that due to passage of time, the inherent

perversity of the crime per se diminishes in any manner. But for the

purposes of reformative sentencing, such long incarceration, as already

suffered by the petitioner, the perversity must be visualised as faded. The

wound suffered by the kith and kin of the deceased, which was fresh in the

year 2001, would have by now reduced to scab. Time heals all wounds. This

is the only way to fathom in order to ensure purposive application of the

reformatory tool of premature release, otherwise no convict would be ever

granted an opportunity to reform himself. For, life imprisonment, by its very

nature is awarded in gruesome offences where the appropriate punishment is

a bit short of awarding capital sentence. A punishment, to be scientific has to

have an end somewhere during lifetime of the convict.

17. Then comes jumping of parole by the petitioner and his re-arrest in

two more criminal cases. Even that occurred way back in the year 2015. As

mentioned above, citing this misconduct, the SRB has repeatedly denied

premature release to the petitioner. Some point of time has to be there, when

aftereffects of such misconduct must taper down. It has been more than a

decade since the petitioner jumped parole and got involved in those two

cases. After the year 2015, there is not even a whiff of any allegation of any

jail misconduct on the part of the petitioner. Rather, as observed hereafter,

subsequently the petitioner was awarded a number of commendations by the

W.P.(CRL) 3429/2024 Page 19 of 22 pages

jail authorities. Most significantly, as discussed above, the petitioner stands

acquitted in those two cases.

18. As regards possibility of the petitioner committing crime again,

merely because he has not physically attained old age, it cannot be said that

there are higher chances of his committing crime again. Bodily strength has

no nexus with the propensity to commit crime. The propensity to commit

crime has to be analysed by examining reformative ascension of the prisoner

as reflected from cogent material. The petitioner has filed, with index dated

24.02.2025, six Commendation Certificates issued by the jail and other

authorities to him. Those certificates include Certificates of Appreciation for

his good work and performance on the occasions of Republic Day of the

years 2021 and 2022; Participation Certificate in the foundation course of

yoga science, conducted under the Ministry of Ayush, Government of India;

Certificate of Appreciation for hard work and efforts in assisting the jail

administration in fight against Covid pandemic; Certificate of learning

computer science; and Certificate issued by Gandhi Smriti & Darshan Smriti

for participation in painting competition. Speaking specifically about

conduct of the petitioner during Covid pandemic, according to the

Appreciation Certificate dated 10.02.2021 issued by the jail authorities, the

petitioner remained associated in cleaning and timely sanitization of jail,

ensuring availability and distribution of face masks, sanitizers, hands wash,

clean clothes and other daily utility items amongst other inmates; and

assisting the jail administration by way of regular counselling of newly

admitted prisoners during Covid pandemic. According to the said

W.P.(CRL) 3429/2024 Page 20 of 22 pages

Appreciation Certificate dated 10.02.2021, the petitioner had done an

extraordinary job in the jail in fight against Corona, due to which the jail

administration succeeded in keeping Corona free the jail no.2, even while

admitting and quarantining more than 8200 newly admitted prisoners. These

certificates, coupled with the fact that across a period of time, the petitioner

was released on parole and furlough more than once show a substantial

reformative growth of the petitioner, which is a vital indicator of reduced

propensity to commit crime again. For, it shows a realisation in the

petitioner that he can live life of appreciation by staying away from crime.

19. As regards the said Commendation Certificates, I am unable to agree

with the contention of learned ASC that the same only make the prisoner

eligible for consideration and cannot be a ground to grant premature release.

The policy of 2004, extracted above makes it clear that irrespective of such

certificates, every convicted prisoner undergoing life sentence has to be

considered for premature release after serving sentence of 14 years without

remissions. So far as eligibility or entitlement to be considered for premature

release is concerned, the only criteria is that the convicted prisoner must be

the one facing a life imprisonment sentence, who has served 14 years of

actual imprisonment. The Commendation Certificates, as noted above are

guiding tools for SRB in exercise of discretion to grant premature release.

20. As regards the ‘strong objection’ by police to allow the petitioner

premature release, no reasonable grounds of objection have been spelt out.

However, in this regard, the police also has to shift their paradigm from

W.P.(CRL) 3429/2024 Page 21 of 22 pages

oppressive punitive approach to reformatory approach. Not everything

propounded for an accused or a convict has to be opposed by police as a

matter of routine.

21. In the overall circumstances of this case, I have no doubt that the

petitioner stands substantially reformed and can become a useful member of

the society. Keeping the petitioner in jail for further period would not yield

any fruitful result towards his reformation or to the society at large.

22. I have also deliberated upon the submission of learned ASC that in

case the impugned decision (or indecision) of SRB is found not sustainable,

the matter be remanded for fresh consideration in a time bound manner in

the light of parameters to be laid down by this court. As mentioned above,

the impugned decision of denial of premature release to the petitioner suffers

from vices of non-application of mind and completely mechanical approach

to such a sensitive issue. But for the time being, instead of straightaway

directing premature release of the petitioner, it is considered appropriate that

the SRB be given a chance to re-examine the entire issue in the light of

above discussion.

23. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is allowed and the respondent is

directed to consider afresh case of the petitioner for premature release in

cases FIR No.611/2001 of PS Badarpur and FIR No.261/2001 of PS

Seemapuri for offences under Section 302/120B/364A/384/186/353/307/419

IPC in accordance with the policy of the year 2004 and the parameters laid

W.P.(CRL) 3429/2024 Page 22 of 22 pages

down and discussed above; the fresh consideration of case of the petitioner

shall be concluded within four weeks and the decision shall be

communicated to the petitioner within one week thereafter. It is specifically

directed that in case the SRB does not find it to be a fit case to grant

premature release to the petitioner, the decision of SRB shall be worded in a

manner that one can decipher as to what worked in the mind of SRB. Lastly,

it is also expected that the competent authority shall deliberate upon the

composition of SRB and reconstitute the same, and shall also further

finetune the policy of 2004 on the lines discussed above.

GIRISH KATHPALIA

(JUDGE)

JUNE 11, 2025/

ry/as