Md. Rashid Khan vs Union Of India & Anr.

Court
Delhi High Court

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Reserved on: 12 December, 2025
th
Pronounced on: 5 June 2026

+ W.P.(CRL) 1041/2021, CRL.M.A. 13119/2021, CRL.M.A.
17749/2022, CRL.M.A. 26143/2022 & CRL.M.A. 16189/2023

MD. RASHID KHAN
Life Convict No.7048/A,
Presently lodged at
Presidency Correctional Home,
WEST BENGAL. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Varun Goswami & Ms. Dakshita
Sharma, Advocates.

versus

1. UNION OF INDIA
Through the Secretary
Government of India
Home Department Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block
New Delhi-110001 .....Respondent No.1

2. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Through the Secretary
Department of Home Affairs
Nabanna, Kolkata,
WEST BENGAL .....Respondent No.2
Through: Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr.
Kushagra Kumar and Mr. Amit Kumar
Rana, Advs. Mr. Kunal Chatterji, Advocate
for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:12.06.2026
10:59:52
W.P.(CRL) 1041/2021 Page 1 of 30

J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. The petitioner, Rashid Khan, convicted on 31.08.2001, in
TADA Case No.01/1993 in FIR dated 31.12.1992 , under Section
120B/436/302 IPC, 3 and 5 Explosive Substances Act and 3 & 4
TADA, PS Sec H (Bowbazar), by the Judge, Designated Court TADA,
Calcutta, has sought to quash and set aside the Orders dated
29.05.2017 passed by the State Sentence Review Board in its 59th
Meeting and Order dated 08.08.2018 passed at the Special Meeting of
the State Sentence Review Board, rejecting the pre-mature release of
the Petitioner and to direct the Central Government to grant the
benefit of remission for the premature release of the Petitioner, by
way of Writ Petition filed under Article 226 Constitution of India read
with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
( hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’ )
2. Briefly stated , the Petitioner was arrested in TADA Case
No.01/1993, dated 31.12.1992 wherein after he was convicted on
31.08.2001, by the Judge, Designated Court TADA, Calcutta. The
Apex Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal No.1114/2001 and other
connected criminal Appeals, filed by the Petitioner and the other co-
accused persons, and upheld the conviction and sentence of all the
accused persons, including the Petitioner.
3. He is in Judicial Custody since 03.03.1993, i.e. for a period of
more than 26 years and 10 months, till the date of filing of the
present Petition.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:12.06.2026
10:59:52
W.P.(CRL) 1041/2021 Page 2 of 30

4. The Petitioner stated that the Government of West Bengal, in exercise
of powers under Section 432 Cr.P.C. remitted the unexpired portion of the
sentence of co-accused, Pannalal Jaysoara, in terms of Notification
No.980-J/JD/III/2P-38/13 dated 05.03.2014 and was directed to be released
immediately from custody by the Government of West Bengal.
5. However, thereafter Writ Petition (Cr.) No.48 of 2014 titled Union of
India Vs. V. Sriharan , (2016) 7 SCC) was filed by U.O.I. on 27.02.2014,
questioning the jurisdiction of the State Remission Board to grant remission
under the Central Acts, wherein the Constitution Bench, by its interim Order
dated 09.07.2014, restrained the State Governments from exercising the
power of remission, during the pendency of the said Writ Petition.
th
6. In the interim, on 25.03.2015, in its 56 State Sentence Review Board
(hereinafter referred to as ‘SSRB’ ) Meeting, presided by the Additional Chief
Secretary, Home Department, Government of West Bengal, a total number
of 32 cases were placed for consideration and the cases of 5 life convicts,
including the Petitioner, were recommended for premature release after
considering:
(i) The individual reports from Police
Authority, Correctional Home Authority and
Probation cum-After Care Authority;
(ii) The tenure of imprisonment served by the
life convicts;
(iii) Physical and mental condition, age, conduct
during incarceration, potentiality of committing
crime in future, social acceptance, chances in
rehabilitation etc. of the life convicts.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:12.06.2026
10:59:52
W.P.(CRL) 1041/2021 Page 3 of 30

7. The Petitioner’s case for premature release was considered
favorably, however, it was recorded that the Release Order for the five life
convicts, including the Petitioner, shall be issued by the Judicial
Department after observing necessary formalities, including obtaining leave
of the Supreme Court of India, in view of the Order dated 09.07.2014 in
W.P. (Crl.) No. 48 of 2014, due to which direction, the case of the Petitioner
was not processed for issuance of a formal Release Order.
8. With the decision of the Constitution Bench as reported in Union of
India vs. V. Sriharan , (2016) 7 SCC 1, the restrictions imposed in terms of
the modified Interim Order dated 23.07.201, stood vacated.The Writ of V.
Sriharan (supra) was decided with a verdict by a majority of 3:2, on
02.12.2015.
9. The SSRB, again considered the case of the Petitioner, in its
subsequent Meeting held on 10.09.2015, but did not confirm his case for
premature release, because of the restrictions placed in terms of Order dated
23.07.2015 by the Apex Court.
10. The Government of West Bengal in response to a RTI dated
12.05.2016, filed by the Petitioner's son, confirmed that the recommendation
th
made in the 56 Meeting of the SSRB held on 25.03.2015, was reviewed
due to the Order dated 23.07.2015 passed by the Supreme Court of India, in
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 48/2014
11. In State of Gujrat & Anr vs. Lal Singh @ Manjit Singh & Ors ,
Criminal Appeal No. 171 of 2016, Supreme Court of India held that for
TADA offences, the appropriate government for consideration of
premature release, was the Union Government.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:12.06.2026
10:59:52
W.P.(CRL) 1041/2021 Page 4 of 30

12. On 22.07.2016, pursuant to a RTI query, the Government of West
Bengal replied that although the premature release of the Petitioner had been
granted earlier on 25.03.2015, the Government of West Bengal, was
restrained from exercising its power of pre-mature release, in view of the
Order dated 09.07.2014 passed by the Supreme Court of India in V. Sriharan
@, Murugan & Ors , (supra).
13. On 02.09.2016, the Petitioner filed Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 138 of
2016 before the Supreme Court of India, inter alia claiming that the
continued incarceration of the Petitioner is illegal, in view of the decision of
the State Sentence Review Board dated 25.03.2015; and for directing the
Union of India to immediately consider the representation made by the
Petitioner dated 08.08.2016 and release the Petitioner forthwith. On
11.01.2017, the Writ Petition, was dismissed.
14. The Petitioner approached the Union of India through the Home
Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, on 08.08.2016,
and sought for premature release on the ground that the co-accused was
already released and that the State of West Bengal had no objection and had
in fact, at a prior point in time, recommended for release of the Petitioner.
However, the Petitioner received no response from the Union of India.
15. The matter was consistently followed by the son of the Petitioner,
who sent Letters/reminders dated 08.08.2016 , 19.07.2017, 30.08.2017,
24.10.2017 and on 23.01.2017 to the Home Secretary, Ministry of Home
Affairs, Government of India and the Hon‟ble Home Minister, Government
of India, with respect to his earlier letter dated 23.01.2017.
16. On 29.05.2017, the prayer of the Petitioner seeking premature, was
th
again rejected by the State Sentence Review Board, in its 59 Meeting.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:12.06.2026
10:59:52
W.P.(CRL) 1041/2021 Page 5 of 30

17. The son of the Petitioner also wrote a Letter dated 18.09.2017, to the
DG & IG, Correctional Services, West Bengal requesting them to refer the
case of the Petitioner for remission of his sentence, to the Ministry of Home
Affairs for their consideration, in view of the Order dated 11.01.2017 passed
by the Supreme Court.
18. The IS-II Division, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India,
replied vide letter dated 08.09.2017, and Letter dated 08.11.2017, stating
that the Application of the Petitioner for premature release, was still under
process. The son of the Petitioner followed up the matter again through
Letter dated 15.11.2017, but to no avail.
19. Reliance has been placed on The Home Secretary (Prison) & Ors. vs.
H. Nilofer Nisha , Criminal Appeal No. 144 of 2020 and connected matters,
wherein it was held that once a reasoned order is passed, then the detenu
has a right to challenge that order. In such cases, the High Court may
examine the the record of the case, and if it comes to the conclusion that the
order is not a proper order, then it can direct the release of the prisoner, by
giving him the benefit of the Scheme.
20. The Petitioner by way of present Writ Petition has challenged the
arbitrary and illegal action of the Respondents , on the grounds that vide
Order dated 25.03.2015, the SSRB had recommended the release of the
Petitioner.
21. With the decision of the Constitution Bench as reported in Union of
India vs. V. Sriharan , (2016) 7 SCC 1, the restrictions imposed in terms of
the modified Interim Order dated 23.07.201, stood vacated.
22. Further, the co-accused Pannalal Jaysoara stood released in terms of
Notification No.980-J/JD/III/2P-38/13 dated 05.03.2014.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:12.06.2026
10:59:52
W.P.(CRL) 1041/2021 Page 6 of 30

23. The petitioner referred to the following documents from the
Superintendent, Presidency Correctional Home, Alipore, Kolkata, namely:
a. Detention Certificate dated 12.02.2020.
b. Character Certificate dated 12.02.2020.
c. Work done at Correctional Home during the period of detention as
per communication dated 12.02.2020.
d. Medical Certificate dated 11.02.2020.
24. The Character Certificate granted by the Superintendent, Presidency
Correctional Home records that the conduct of the Petitioner is free from
any punishment and that his behaviour in the Correctional Home is „ very
very good ‟, during the period of custody, which spans over 26 years and 10
months; he has been very cooperative with the Authorities and co-inmates.
The Character Certificate further records that the Petitioner has been
released on parole several times and he has returned to the Correctional
Home, in due time.
25. The Work done during detention, which includes cleaning and
gardening in the cell of Alipore Central Correctional Home, Labour at Art
School of Alipore Central Correctional Home and day and night watch
( pahara ), at Presidency Correctional Home.
26. Additionally, Petitioner had been granted parole without Police escort
for 93 days and had reported at the prison within time, which speaks of his
conduct, there is no complaint made by any member of any community
against the Petitioner, as regards to any threat having been extended by the
Petitioner to any individual(s); display of any enmity towards any
individual(s); or hurting sentiments of any religious community, etc., which
shows that the apprehension of the Respondents, is completely unfounded
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:12.06.2026
10:59:52
W.P.(CRL) 1041/2021 Page 7 of 30

27. Moreover, the reasons which are being cited to deny the benefit of
premature release to the Petitioner, become pale when compared with the
age of the Petitioner being 72 years, period of detention of the Petitioner
being 26 years and 10 months, and character and conduct of the Petitioner
during detention and medical ailments suffered by him. The fact that
Petitioner has been released on parole for 93 days without police escort and
no incident taking place during the period of release, belies the claim of the
Respondents regarding enmity, the chance of further recurrence of crime, as
well as the chance of retaliation upon the witnesses, continuing to exist.
Therefore, a humane approach ought to be taken, because the most crucial
and germane aspect amongst the various theories for punishment which are
propounded, is the effect of reformation of the accused as part of retribution .
28. The adverse reasons cited against the Petitioner, ought to be weighed
in the context of the Report of the Superintendent which has recommended
positive chance of rehabilitation upon release.
29. In the judgment of The Home Secretary (Prison) & Ors. vs. H.
Nilofer Nisha , the Supreme Court of India had held that the conduct of the
concerned convict during the period of incarceration/ custody, wipes out /
allays all fears of the State. Apex Court directed for premature release of the
convicts.
30. The Report of the Probation Officer in the said case, is quite similar to
the Report relied upon by the Respondents in the present case, regarding the
nature of offence, the social impact of the offence etc.
31. Therefore, whereas there cannot be absolutely any doubt with the
proposition that all crimes proved must be subjected to commensurate
punishment/ sentence as per law, equally true is the fact that all are born
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:12.06.2026
10:59:52
W.P.(CRL) 1041/2021 Page 8 of 30

good and circumstances transform/ compel them to take the path of crime;
hence, the introduction of a sublime philosophy that reformation should
always be the dominant objective as part of the sentencing policy. The above
holds true as per established criminal jurisprudence of our country, where
the doctrine of proportionality and the theory of deterrence, have often taken
a backseat and the theory of reformation and rehabilitation has prevailed
over the idea of retribution.
32. Reliance has been placed on Maru Ram vs. Union of India , (1981) 1
SCC 107 wherein it has been held that penal humanitarianism and
rehabilitative desideratum warrant liberal paroles, subject to security
safeguards, and other humanizing strategies for inmates, so that the dignity
and worth of the human person are not desecrated by making mass jails
anthropoid zoos. Human rights awareness must infuse institutional reform
and search for alternatives .
33. The development in the aspect of reformation has continued, being the
ultimate goal, as is evident from the various Orders passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the matter of In Re: Inhuman Conditions of 1382
Prisons , W.P. (Civil) No. 406 of 2013 wherein vide Order dated 05.02.2016
it was directed that the Model Prison Manual, 2016 be implemented with
“ due seriousness and dispatch ”.
34. Therefore, the State and the Central Government have to consider the
request for premature release reasonably. There has been no change in
factual situation in the matter since 25.03.2015, when the SSRB had
th
recommended for premature release of the Petitioner, in its 56 Meeting.
The factors which have weighed with the Respondents to reject the prayer
for premature release vide Orders dated 29.05.2017 and 08.08.2018, were
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:12.06.2026
10:59:52
W.P.(CRL) 1041/2021 Page 9 of 30

existing at the time of consideration/ grant of the benefit of premature
release on 25.03.2015, itself.
35. There is no other equally efficacious alternative remedy available to
the Petitioner for the reliefs prayed for in this Petition, except to approach
this Court. Therefore, it is prayed that the Order dated 29.05.2017 passed by
th
the SSRB in its 59 Meeting and Order dated 08.08.2018 passed at the
Special Meeting of the SSRB, rejecting the prayer for premature release of
the Petitioner be set aside, and issue directions to the Central Government to
consider and thereby issue necessary Orders for the premature release of the
Petitioner.
36. Short Affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent No.1 Union
of India wherein it is stated that Md. Rashid Khan, a TADA convict was
sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 120B IPC, 3 and 5 ES Act,
3(2)(1) TADA Act read with Section 34 IPC and 3(3) TADA (P) Act and is
serving his sentence in the State of West Bengal. The said convict requested
for his premature release by commuting his sentence.
37. It is stated that Section 432 Cr.P.C. provides the power to suspend or
remit sentences. Further, Section 433 Cr.P.C. provides the power to
commute sentences, and Section 433A Cr.P.C. provides restriction on
powers of remission or commutation in certain cases. Further, Section 435
Cr.P.C. provides the State Government to act after consultation with Central
Government, in certain cases.
38. In the light of the aforesaid provisions, the Government of India,
Ministry of Home Affairs while deciding the premature release , sought
inputs from the Government of West Bengal, which was not recommended
as per the Letter dated 20.02.2019 issued by the Government of West
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:12.06.2026
10:59:52
W.P.(CRL) 1041/2021 Page 10 of 30

Bengal, in view of the gravity of the offences, the socio-economic conditions
of the life convict and the inputs received by them from the prosecuting
agency, i.e. Police, stating that such release may have adverse social impact.
39. Based on the inputs available on record and keeping in view the
overall facts and circumstances of the case, the request of the Petitioner was
not accepted by the Ministry of Home Affairs, as the acts of crime committed
by the Petitioner, amounted to offences under TADA and had affected
national security.

40. The Petitioner Md. Rashid Khan, has been convicted for various
offences which are very serious in nature, and thus, the he is a very serious
threat to the society as well as to the country. Thus, the present Petition is
not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed being devoid of any cogent
reasons.
41. Respondent No.2 State of West Bengal in its counter-Affidavit, has
stated that the Petitioner was admitted to Jail as Under-Trial Prisoner (UTP)
on 30.03.1993 in c/w Bowbazar, PS Case No.84 dated 17.03.1993 under
Section 120B/436/302 IPC, 3 and 5 Explosive Substances Act and 3 & 4
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act.
42. On 31.03.2001 the Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment for life and lodged at Alipore Central Correctional Home. It is
stated that the petitioner was the mastermind of the aforementioned case.
Pannalal Jaiswara, one of the co-convicts, aged 80 years, had lost his
eyesight substantially, during his stay in Correctional Home. He was an
associate of the Petitioner, whereas the Petitioner is the mastermind of the
Bowbazar Explosion case in Kolkata, West Bengal.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:12.06.2026
10:59:52
W.P.(CRL) 1041/2021 Page 11 of 30

43. Pannalal Jaiswara , co-convict was released prematurely vide Order
No.980-J/JD/III/2P-38/13 dated 05.03.2014 in exercise of the State‟s power
of granting remission under Section 432 Cr.P.C., on the basis of the
th
recommendation of 54 Meeting of SSRB held on 09.12.2013 before the
decision of the Supreme Court of India in W.P. (Crl.) No. 48 pf 2014 dated
09.07.2014 and 23.07.2015, whereby all States were restrained from
exercising their power to remit sentences imposed upon inmates incarcerated
in Correctional Home/ Jail custody and the procedure of Premature Release,
especially of Convicts sentenced under Central Laws.
th
44. It is admitted that on 25.03.2015, in the 56 Meeting of SSRB, the
case of Premature Release of Petitioner Rashid Khan was recommended , but
further proceedings kept getting adjourned, in view of the Restraint order
dated 09.07.2014 passed by the Supreme Court of India in the W.P. (Crl.)
No. 48 of 2014.
45. It is stated that in the light of the modified Order dated 23.07.2015 of
the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in W.P. (Crl.) No. 48 of 2014, in a
Special Meeting of SSRB all cases which had been recommended by the
SSRB, were further reviewed on 10.09.2015. In the said Meeting, the SSRB
rejected the cases of Rashid Khan and Abdul Aziz C.K., both sentenced for
life imprisonment under Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act
46. It is stated that after the decision of 23.07.2015, the son of the
Petitioner had prayed through Letter dated 08.08.2016, the Premature
Release of his father. During the pendency of the decision, a Writ Petition
under Article 32 Constitution of India came to be filed before the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court of India being W.P. (Crl.) No. 138 of 2016 praying for
premature release of the Petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:12.06.2026
10:59:52
W.P.(CRL) 1041/2021 Page 12 of 30

47. It is stated that on 11.01.2017 Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India
dismissed the said Writ Petition directing the Government of West Bengal to
decide the Representation dated 08.08.2016 within 3 months, and further
granted liberty to challenge the decision before the appropriate High Court
48. It is stated that the case of Petitioner Rashid Khan was considered by
th
the SSRB in its 59 Meeting held on 29.05.2017, but his case was rejected
yet again by the SSRB in view of the Restraining Order of Hon‟ble Supreme
Court of India.

49. It is stated that on 12.12.2017 Petitioner filed Writ Petition being W.P.
(Crl.) No. 238/2018 before this Court praying for joint and concurrent
consideration of his prayer for Premature Release by the Government of
India and Government of West Bengal, without challenging the decision of
the SSRB dated 29.05.2017.
50. It is stated that while on 25.04.2018, a Comprehensive Report vide
Memo No. 219/DG-IG/18 dated 25.04.2018 along with all relevant
documents, issued by Directorate of Correctional Services, West Bengal was
sent to the Department of Correctional Administration, Government of West
Bengal for onward transmission to Judicial Department in Government of
West Bengal, to take up the matter with the Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India.
51. It is stated that on 08.08.2018 a Special Meeting of SSRB was
convened vide Directorate of Correctional Services, West Bengal No.
419(5)/DGIG/18 dated 06.08.2018, read with Home & Hill Affairs
Department, Government of West Bengal vide No. 1193- I.S.S./2M-147/15
dated 06.08.2018 to consider the case of Petitioner Rashid Khan. After
detailed deliberations, the SSRB rejected the prayer for premature release in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:12.06.2026
10:59:52
W.P.(CRL) 1041/2021 Page 13 of 30

view of the strong objection raised by Kolkata Police Authorities
considering the social impact, gravity of the offence, and socio-economic
condition of the life convict in question. Petitioner has now sought to
challenge the decision 29.05.2017 and 06.08.2018 in the present writ
petition.
52. The Petitioner cannot claim negative equality. The SSRB has rightly
rejected the prayer for Petitioner. The Petitioner had the option of
challenging the decision dated 29.05.2017 in his previous Writ Petition
being W.P. (Crl.) 268 of 2018 filed in December 2017, but chose not todo
so. As such, the challenge to Order dated 29.05.2017 cannot be maintained
anymore.
53. The liberty granted by this Court 27.08.2019 in W.P. (Crl.) 268 of
2018, cannot be interpreted to include liberty to challenge the decision dated
29.05.2017. There is no specific liberty to challenge the decision dated
29.05.2017. This liberty granted vide Order dated 27.08.2019 needs to be
interpreted in light of the liberty granted by the Supreme Court of India in
W.P. (Crl.) 138 of 2016 dated 11.01.2017.
54. Merely because Union of India has its office in Delhi, the present case
will have no jurisdiction. The cause of action to file a case arises only when
provisions of the Act or some of them which were implemented, shall give
rise to civil consequences to the Petitioner.
55. In the present case, no decision which has been challenged by the
Petitioner has taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and
thus, in view of the liberty granted by Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India on
11.01.2017, the Petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the case, to
approach the appropriate High Court.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:12.06.2026
10:59:52
W.P.(CRL) 1041/2021 Page 14 of 30

56. It is submitted that there are two types of remission or premature
release which are available to a convict; one, which is according to the Jail
Manual, and the second, according to the Cr.P.C. In the present case, it
appears that the Petitioner is praying for premature release under Section
432 of Cr.P.C., which after due consideration, has been refused by the State
Government and the said decision cannot be interfered, in exercise of writ
jurisdiction and no premature release can be directed by this Court.
57. Reliance has been placed on Gopal Vinayak Godse vs. State of
Maharashtra , [(1961) 3 SCR 440) wherein it is stated that sentence for
“ imprisonment for life ” ordinarily means imprisonment for the whole of the
remaining period of the convicted person‟s natural life. A convict may earn
remission under the Prison Rules, but such remission in absence of order by
Appropriate Government remitting the balance of sentence, cannot be
ordered in favour of life convicts.
58. In fact, the decision of Union of India vs. V. Shriharan (supra) has
overruled the decision in Sangeet vs. State of Haryana , (2013) 2 SCC 452
and held that there may be special category of sentence which may be
beyond the scope of remission.
59. The decision of Sriharan (supra) follows the guidelines laid down in
Swamy Shraddananda vs. State of Karnataka , (2008) 13 SCC 767, in view
of which the Petitioner
’s case was considered duly by the SSRB and
rejected.
60. The allegations in the Application and Petition are denied and
disputed, except for matters of record. It is stated that the decision of
Supreme Court of India in Order dated 09.07.2014 passed in W.P. (Crl.) 48
of 2014, which further came to be modified on 23.07.2015, still holds good.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:12.06.2026
10:59:52
W.P.(CRL) 1041/2021 Page 15 of 30

It is stated that on this issue, Review Petition (Crl) 247-249 of 2014 had
been filed on 01.04.2014 in Transfer Cases (Cri) No. 1-3 of 2012 and
Curative Petition No. 22-24 of 2015, came to be dismissed on 28.07.2015.
61. In fact, the issue in Shriharan (supra) does not in any way interfere
with executive power, in considering a case of premature release. The
decision of the SSRB dated 08.08.2018 is correct and in accordance with law
and the Petitioner cannot challenge the said decision in writ jurisdiction,
without specifying grounds which makes it a case amenable for writ petition.

62. It is stated that no hard and fast rule can be applied to the cases of
remission of life convicts. The Authority is required to consider various
factors including potential adverse impact that may cause to the victim, if the
person is released prematurely.
63. In the present case, the Petitioner was convicted under TADA for
gruesome Bomb Blast in the city which even today is a cause of trauma for
many living in the area and in other parts of city. In fact, keeping these
factors in mind, though Respondent no.2 had considered prayer for
remission of TADA, accused after the matter of Sriharan (supra) was
decided, however, anyone who is life convict under TADA, has not been
released.
64. The case of the Petitioner was considered in Special Meeting dated
08.08.2018 wherein the SSRB considered the case of Petitioner. Even
though there may be recommendation by Correctional Service Authority in
favour of Petitioner, but considering the gravity of offence, effect in society,
adverse Police Report against the Petitioner’s release, etc., it refused to
grant remission.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:12.06.2026
10:59:52
W.P.(CRL) 1041/2021 Page 16 of 30

65. In the present Petition, the Petitioner has raised grounds which cannot
be considered to be grounds requiring judiciary review of the administrative
action, which is otherwise, in accordance with the law. It is further stated
that there is no legal right to get remission, there is only a right to be
considered. The Respondent no.2 has considered the prayer of the Petitioner
in accordance with law.
66. It is stated that in view of the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court of
India in Rajan vs. Home Secretary , (2019) 14 SCC 114, it is the prerogative
of the appropriate government to grant or reject remission.
67. In view of the aforesaid, it is prayed that the Petition deserves to be
dismissed with exemplary costs.
68. Written Submissions have been filed on behalf of the Petitioner
wherein it is stated that Petitioner has been in Judicial Custody since
03.03.1993, i.e., for a period of more than 33 years and 07 months as on
date. The Petitioner is presently aged 77 Years and is suffering from various
old age ailments such as chronic metabolic disease, diabetes, hypertension,
benign prostatic hypertrophy, left eye cataract and other age-related
ailments.
69. The Petitioner has submitted that his case for premature release be
considered in light of the submissions which are being urged in the
alternative and without prejudice to each and other.
70. With regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, it is submitted
that since the investigation in the present case is for the conviction under the
TADA, a Central Act enacted by the Central Government under the Union
List of the Constitution of India, the remission of sentence cannot be
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:12.06.2026
10:59:52
W.P.(CRL) 1041/2021 Page 17 of 30

exercised by the State Government, except after consultation with the
Central Government.
71. The Petitioner was convicted under the TADA by the Calcutta Court.
However, the Central Government/ Ministry of Home Affairs, CS Division,
New Delhi, rejected the Application of the Petitioner seeking premature
release and further stated that the State Government cannot remit the
sentence of the convict under Section 435 Cr.P.C., without approval and
consultation of the Central Government and accordingly, the Ministry of
Home Affairs has refused to agree for the release of the Petitioner on
account of he being convicted under serious offence of TADA.
72. Reliance has been placed on Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab , (1994)
3 SCC 569 wherein it has been held that TADA is a Central Act under the
domain of the Parliament, and Alchemist vs. State Bank of Sikkim , (2007) 11
SCC 335 wherein it has been held that even if a small fraction of cause of
action arises within the jurisdiction of the court, the Court would have
territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Petitioner. Reliance has further been
placed on Rajiv Modi vs. Sanjay Jain & Ors. , (2009) 13 SCC 241, wherein it
has been held that when whole or part of cause of action has arisen in the
jurisdiction of a particular court, the said court can certainly take cognizance
of the matter.
73. On the ground of parity , it is stated that the co-convict Pannalal
Jaysoara faced the same trial in the same incident and was charged for the
identical offences as the Petitioner, and was convicted through a common
decision, and has been granted premature release on 05.03.2014. Thus, the
Petitioner who has spent more than the statutory sentence as a life convict,
i.e. approximately 34 years, deserves to be granted premature release.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:12.06.2026
10:59:52
W.P.(CRL) 1041/2021 Page 18 of 30

74. A humane approach is prayed for considering the conduct and the
character of the Petitioner during his entire period of incarceration has been
impeccable, spotless, and flawless as is evident from the Character
Certificate dated 12.02.2020 issued by the Jail Authorities.
75. Reliance has been placed on Vijay Kumar Shukla vs. State of NCT of
Delhi , wherein it has been held that the objective of punishment should
focus on reformation and reintegration, ensuring that clemency and
remission policies align with modern penological theories, that view
punishment not as retributive but as a means to foster rehabilitation. Further,
it has been held that punishment has to be inflicted, not for the sake of
vengeance, for what is done cannot be undone, but for the sake of prevention
and reformation.
76. Reliance has further been placed on Wahid Ahmed vs. State of NCT of
Delhi , wherein one of the factors considered included that three other
convicts in virtually identical situations, had been granted the benefit of
premature release.
77. Reliance has also been placed on Vikram Yadav vs. State of NCT of
Delhi , wherein various factors had been considered and it was held that the
Petitioner stood substantially reformed and could become a useful member
of society.
78. Thus, prayer is made for grant of benefit of premature release to the
Petitioner.
79. Written Submissions have been filed on behalf of Respondent No.2
wherein it has raised a foundational and preliminary objection that the
present Writ Petition is not maintainable, for want of territorial jurisdiction
under Article 226(2) Constitution of India 1950. The entire cause of action
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:12.06.2026
10:59:52
W.P.(CRL) 1041/2021 Page 19 of 30

wholly and exclusively arose within the State of West Bengal and not within
the National Capital Territory of Delhi.
80. The challenge in the Petition is directed against two administrative
decisions of the State Sentence Review Board, Government of West Bengal,
namely: (i) the decision dated 29.05.2017 passed in the 59th Meeting of the
Board; and (ii) the decision dated 08.08.2018 passed in a Special Meeting of
the Board. Both decisions were taken by State authorities located in Kolkata,
West Bengal, after considering records, reports and materials belonging
entirely to the State of West Bengal.
81. The Petitioner is lodged in the Presidency Correctional Home,
Alipore, Kolkata, and all records pertaining to his incarceration, conduct,
medical status, police verification, and social impact assessment are
maintained, evaluated, and updated entirely within the State of West Bengal.
The alleged offence was committed in Kolkata, and the entire criminal trial
was also conducted before the competent courts in Kolkata. Thus, every
material and essential fact forming the bundle of facts giving rise to the
cause of action has arisen exclusively within the territorial jurisdiction of the
State of West Bengal.
82. The mere impleadment of the Union of India as a party, does not
confer territorial jurisdiction on this Court. The Union of India has not
passed any of the impugned orders, nor exercised any statutory or executive
function that forms part of the grievance raised in the writ petition. It is
settled law that the presence of the Union of India in Delhi, cannot by itself
give rise to a cause of action in Delhi when the substantive lis concerns
decisions of another State.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:12.06.2026
10:59:52
W.P.(CRL) 1041/2021 Page 20 of 30

83. The Petitioner
’s reliance on the liberty granted by the Supreme Court
in its Order dated 11.01.2017 in W.P. (Crl) No. 138/2016, is wholly
misconceived. The said liberty was only to challenge the decision of the
State authorities before the appropriate High Court. It cannot be interpreted
as conferring or expanding territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.
The appropriate High Court is clearly the High Court at Calcutta.
84. The Order of this Court dated 27.08.2019 in WP (Crl.) No.268/2018,
also does not assist the petitioner. That Order merely disposed of that
petition on the basis of liberty already granted by the Supreme Court,
without adjudicating any question of jurisdiction. It did not direct or permit
the filing of the subsequent challenge, before this Court. The petitioner
’s
interpretation of the Order, is legally unsustainable.
85. The Petitioner
’s attempt to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court on
vague or incidental references to the Union of India, or on the basis of past
litigation concerning different causes of action, is impermissible. The
jurisdiction cannot be created by clever drafting, nor can it be conferred by
naming the Union of India as a Respondent when the cause of action is
entirely anchored in State decisions.
86. The Petitioner has also attempted to raise issues regarding the release
of a co-convict, namely Pannalal Jaiswara , who was released under Section
432 Cr.P.C. by the State Government. This, too, is a State decision arising in
West Bengal, and has no nexus whatsoever with Delhi. Such arguments do
not and cannot, create a cause of action in Delhi. Further, in the same
decision, the State Authorities has taken the conscious decision of not
releasing the Petitioner being Master-Mind of the entire Bomb Blast.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:12.06.2026
10:59:52
W.P.(CRL) 1041/2021 Page 21 of 30

87. The petitioner previously filed WP (Crl.) No. 268/2018 before this
Court but chose not to challenge the decision dated 29.05.2017, at that time.
He cannot now revive that stale grievance and attempt to confer jurisdiction
upon this Court, by belatedly challenging the same. This conduct
underscores the petitioner
’s attempt at forum shopping, which must be
firmly rejected.
88. The petitioner
’s reliance on the Constitution Bench judgment in Union
of India v. V. Sriharan @ Murugan, ( 2016) 7 SCC 1, is entirely misplaced.
The Sriharan judgment lays down the principle that where remission of
Sentences is imposed under a Central law, or in cases involving Central
agency investigations, or where the Central Government has already taken a
definitive view under Sections 432–433A CrPC, the appropriate
Government for considering remission, would be the Central Government.
89. The ratio is attracted only where the Central Government has
exercised or is required to exercise such statutory power. In the present case,
no such occasion arises, as the entire consideration pertains to a conviction
under TADA and the petitioner
’s application for premature release was
examined exclusively by the State Sentence Review Board, which took an
independent view based on adverse police reports, societal impact, and other
State-level factors. The Central Government has not taken any view, nor has
it passed any decision, that is the subject matter of challenge.
90. It is further submitted that the petitioner
’s attempt to rely on alleged
parity with other co-accused stands, wholly negated by subsequent judicial
developments. The Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta, in MAT
861 of 2024 The State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Md. Khalid , by judgment
dated 22.09.2025, as subsequently corrected on 25.09.2025, has dismissed
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:12.06.2026
10:59:52
W.P.(CRL) 1041/2021 Page 22 of 30

the Petition filed by a co-accused seeking premature release, arising from the
same Bowbazar Blast case.
91. Therefore, prayer is made that the present Writ Petition be dismissed
at the threshold, with such further orders as this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit
in the interests of justice.
Submissions heard and record peruse
92. Essentially, the present case pertains to the premature release of the
Petitioner Md. Rashid Khan, who has been in judicial custody since
03.03.1993, i.e. for a period of approximately 33 years, while undergoing
life imprisonment for the offences under TADA Act read with Section 34
IPC, for a gruesome Bomb Blast in the city of Kolkata, West Bengal.
93. It is well settled that the Indian judicial jurisprudence has adopted a
Reformative approach over retribution. The reformative approach is
specifically adopted in assessing the case for premature release.
94. In Jacob George (Dr) vs. State of Kerala , (1994) 3 SCC 430, the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India has identified the various purposes for
which punishment is meted out. It was observed:
“ 17. ...The purpose which punishment achieves or is
required to achieve are four in number. First, retribution:
i.e. taking of eye for eye or tooth for tooth. The object
behind this is to protect the society from the depredations
of dangerous persons; and so, if somebody takes an eye of
another, his eye is taken in vengeance. This form of
protection may not receive general approval of the society
in our present state of education and understanding of
human psychology…
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:12.06.2026
10:59:52
W.P.(CRL) 1041/2021 Page 23 of 30

18. The other purpose of sentence is preventive. We are
sure that the sentence of imprisonment already undergone
would be an eye-opener to the appellant and he would
definitely not repeat the illegal act of the type at hand.
19. Deterrence is another object which punishment is
required to achieve. Incarceration of about two months
undergone by the appellant and upholding of his conviction
by us which is likely to affect the practice adversely, would
or should deter others to desist them from indulging in an
illegal act like the one at hand.
20. Reformation is also an expected outcome of
undergoing sentence. We do think that two months’ sojourn
of the appellant behind the iron bars and stone walls must
have brought home to him the need of his changing the type
of practice he had been doing as a homeopath. The
reformative aspect of punishment has achieved its
purpose, according to us, by keeping the appellant inside
the prison boundaries for about two months having
enabled him to know during this period the trauma which
one suffers in jail, and so the appellant is expected to take
care to see that in future he does not indulge in such an
act which would find him in prison . ”
[Emphasis supplied]
95. Likewise, in State of Gujarat vs. Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat ,
(1998) 7 SCC 392, it has been held that a reformative approach is now very
much intertwined with a rehabilitative aspect to a convicted prisoner ,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:12.06.2026
10:59:52
W.P.(CRL) 1041/2021 Page 24 of 30

although too much stress cannot be laid on it so that basic tenets of
punishment altogether vanish:
“ 28. This is the context to consider whether deterrence is
the main objective for punishment. Among the conflicting
theories for punishment, modern criminologists are
highlighting the reformative effect on the punished criminal
as the most germane aspect. Jereme Bentham who
propounded the theory of deterrence is now considered as
the apostle of a conservative old school of thought. The
retributive theory of punishment has waned into a relic of
primitivity because civilised society has realised that
retribution cannot solve the problem of escalating criminal
offences. Crime is now considered to be a problem of social
hygiene. That modern diagnosis made by criminologists is
now causing a sea change to the whole approach towards
crime and punishment. The emphasis involved in
punishment has now been transposed from retribution to
cure and reform so that the original man, who was mentally
healthy, can be recreated from the ailing criminal. ”
[Emphasis supplied]
96. It has been held that reformation should be the dominant objective of
a punishment and during incarceration, every effort should be made to
recreate the good man out of a convicted prisoner.
97. In Maru Ram vs. Union of India , (1981) 1 SCC 107 with respect to
adoption of humanizing strategies for inmates so that the dignity and worth
of the human person are not desecrated . A reformative approach ought to be
taken, and it also ought to be the dominant objective as part of the
sentencing policy.
98. The reformative approach instils the principle that the one who has
committed the offence is not evil incarnate, but rather an individual who
may be reintegrated into society through corrective measures. On the other
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:12.06.2026
10:59:52
W.P.(CRL) 1041/2021 Page 25 of 30

hand, retributive approach would amount to a punishment, which is inflicted
as an act of vengeance.
99. The premature release, or the remission of the sentence of a convicted
person permits their reintegration into society on the basis of certain specific
factors including, the loss of propensity to commit crime, the possibility of
reclaiming them as a useful member of society and the socio-economic
condition of his family.
100. The Supreme Court of India has in Laxman Naskar v. Union of India,
(2000) 2 SCC 595, has laid five factors for the evaluation of remission or
premature release, which are as follows:
(i) Whether the offense is an individual act of crime without
affecting society at large;
(ii) Whether there is any chance of future recurrence and whether
the convict has lost potentiality for committing crime;
(iii) Whether there is any fruitful purpose of confining this convict
anymore;
(iv) Whether there is any fruitful purpose of confining this convict
anymore; and
(v) Socio-economic condition of the convict's family.
101. The facts of this case may be considered in the light of these
principles.
102. The first aspect is to consider the nature of crime. This is a case of
the Bomb Blast was an offence committed alongside known associates, and
cannot be considered an individual act of crime. The act had an impact on
society at large. However, in the entire Remission Policy, the emphasis is on
reformation, rather than retribution. If the gravity of the offence was an
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:12.06.2026
10:59:52
W.P.(CRL) 1041/2021 Page 26 of 30

important criterion for considering the remission policy, then it would have
been so stated as a ground in the scheme of remission. It would have then
qualified that there can be no remission for certain category of offences,
such as those offences which cause an impact on the national security.
However, no such exception has been carved out. Therefore, all other
circumstances reflecting the individual reformation, take centre stage and if
satisfied, the remission may be granted.
103. Another significant aspect is that the co-accused Sh. Pannalal
Jaysoara, aged about 80 years, suffering from various ailments, has already
been granted remission. Though in the matter of remission, no parity can be
claimed for remission as individual conduct has to be seen, but this fact is
significant, in the context of the gravity of offence. If for the same offence,
co-convict could be granted remission, gravity of offence cannot be a ground
to deny the benefit to the Petitioner, if ha satisfies all the criteria.
a. Moreover, in the 56th SSRB Meeting held on 25.03.2015 the
cases of 5 life convicts, including the Petitioner , were
recommended for premature release after considering:
(i)The individual reports from Police Authority, Correctional
Home Authority and Probation cum-After Care Authority;
(ii) The tenure of imprisonment served by the life convicts;
(iii)Physical and mental condition, age, conduct during
incarceration, potentiality of committing crime in future, social
acceptance, chances in rehabilitation etc. of the life convicts.
104. Though the State Remission board had recommended remission of the
Petitioner in its Meeting on 25.03.2015 , it got caught in the legal rigmarole
of the jurisdiction being of State or Centre, leading to a change of heart and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:12.06.2026
10:59:52
W.P.(CRL) 1041/2021 Page 27 of 30

subsequent denial of Remission. There were no change of circumstances,
rather it was progressing age; despite which the remission was thereafter,
denied without any basis.
105. Second aspect is: whether there is any chance of future recurrence
and whether the convict has lost potentiality for committing crime.
106. As per the Character Certificate dated 12.02.2020 granted by the
Superintendent, Presidency Correctional Home, the conduct of the Petitioner
was considered to be free from any punishment and his behaviour in the
Correctional Home „ very very good ‟, during the period of custody, spanning
over 26 years and 10 months. It is stated that he has been very cooperative
with the Authorities and co-inmates. It may be considered that the Petitioner
has shown conduct which was free from any punishment. His work done
during detention, included cleaning and gardening in the cell of Alipore
Central Correctional Home, Labour at Art School of Alipore Central
Correctional Home and day and night watch ( pahara ) at Presidency
Correctional Home.
107. Further, the Petitioner has been released on parole several times and
he has returned to the Correctional Home in due time. He had even been
granted parole for 93 days, without Police escort, and had reported at the
prison within time. There was no Complaint made by any member of any
community, against the Petitioner as regards any threat having been
extended by the Petitioner to any individual(s), display of any enmity
towards any individual(s), or hurting sentiments of any religious community
etc., which demonstrates that the apprehension of the Respondents is
unfounded.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:12.06.2026
10:59:52
W.P.(CRL) 1041/2021 Page 28 of 30

108. The Petitioner is now aged around 77 years, and suffers from various
ailments as described above, including chronic metabolic disease, diabetes,
hypertension, benign prostatic hypertrophy, left eye cataract and other age-
related ailments.
109. From the aforesaid, it may be derived that there is very low likelihood
of the recurrence of offence by the Petitioner.
110. The third aspect which arises is whether there is any fruitful purpose
of confining this convict anymore . As discussed above, there has been a
reformative approach taken with respect to convicts in cases of remission
rather than a retributive approach. In such a case, to keep the petitioner in
jail, when he has already spent over 33 years in prison, may not be fruitful in
any manner. The punishment undergone by the Petitioner has sufficiently
fulfilled the deterrence sought to be induced in a convict who has committed
such grave offence. Finally, considering the age, conduct and ailments
suffered by the Petitioner, it may be considered that there would not be a
recurrence of such offence by the Petitioner.
111. Even considering the nature of the offence, as well as the social
impact, it may be observed that the offence had been committed in 1993.
Considering the good conduct of the Petitioner during the period of
incarceration, as demonstrated in his Character Certificate, the age of the
convict along with the ailments he is suffering from, there does not appear to
be any fruitful outcome of his incarceration. Rather his record in Jail and the
Reports clearly indicate a reformed person, entitled to reformative approach.
112. Therefore, the Petitioner having served over 33 years of incarceration
including remission for the consequences of his actions and balancing the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:12.06.2026
10:59:52
W.P.(CRL) 1041/2021 Page 29 of 30

individual and societal welfare, it is a fit case where the Petitioner is entitled
to remission and is directed to be released forthwith.
113. In the end, it emerges from the Conter-affidavit of Union of India that
it had considered the recommendation and denied the remission.
Conclusion
114. Once it is held that the circumstances justify his remission, there is no
point in referring the matter back to the Government to grant the remission.
115. The Petition is hereby, allowed and Remission granted to the
petitioner . The Petitioner be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other
case.
116. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms, along with
pending Applications, if any.

(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE


JUNE 05, 2026/RS
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:12.06.2026
10:59:52
W.P.(CRL) 1041/2021 Page 30 of 30