Raju Chhaka vs State Of Nct Of Delhi

Court
Delhi High Court

$~73
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 29 October, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010517352026
+ W.P.(CRL) 3378/2026 & CRL.M.A. 33755/2026
RAJU CHHAKA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Siddharth Satija, Ms. Sowjhanya
Shankaran, Mr. Akash Sachan, Ms.
Anuka Bachawat, Ms. Charu Sinha,
Ms. Akanksha Bisht, Mr. Raghav
Gupta, Mr. Sriharsh Raj and Ms.
Shashankaa Tewari, Advs.
Mob: 9945469905
Email:
[email protected]

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC (Criminal) for
the State, along with Mr. Kshitiz Garg,
Mr. Ashvini Kumar and Mr. Nitish
Dhawan, Advs.
Mob: 9910847958
Email:
[email protected]
Mr. Harsh, SI, PS Paharganj.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (Oral):
1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, 1950 (“Constitution”), read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
13:38:28
Page 1 of 6

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), seeking issuance of a writ in the
th
nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 09 March, 2026, passed by the
Government of NCT of Delhi (“GNCTD”), Home (General) Department,
th
pursuant to the Minutes of Meeting (“MoM”) dated 14 January, 2026, of the
Sentence Review Board (“SRB”).
2. A further prayer is made for issuance of a writ in the nature of
mandamus directing the respondent to order the premature release of the
petitioner, who was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life vide order on
th
sentence dated 10 June, 2016, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Special Fast Track Court-2, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in the
case arising out of the First Information Report (“FIR”) being FIR No.
17/2014 , registered at Police Station (“PS”) Paharganj, Delhi, under Sections
376D/366/342/395/397/412/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”),
and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (“Arms Act”).
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies upon the judgment
th
dated 10 August, 2026, passed by this Court in W.P.(CRL.) 2875/2025 , titled
as Ramesh Versus State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. , and another connected
petition, with specific reference to paragraph 53 of the said judgment.
th
4. He further draws the attention of this Court to the MoM dated 14
January, 2026, wherein, the only basis upon which the SRB has rejected the
application of the petitioner for premature release, is the heinous nature of the
crime committed by him.
5. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned Additional Standing
Counsel (“ASC”) appearing for the State.
6. Learned ASC appearing for the State submits that in case an application
of a convict for premature release is rejected, the same can be reconsidered
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
13:38:28
Page 2 of 6

by the SRB in terms of any directions that may be passed by this Court.
7. Having heard learned counsels appearing for the parties, this Court
th
notes the contents of the MoM dated 14 January, 2026, whereby the
application for premature release of the petitioner was rejected by the SRB in
the following manner:
“xxx xxx xxx


xxx xxx xxx”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
13:38:28
Page 3 of 6

8. Perusal of the aforesaid MoM clearly shows that at the time of
considering the application of the petitioner, the sole consideration of the SRB
was the serious, heinous, and grave nature of the offence for which he was
convicted.
9. However, this Court notes that the guidelines, as contained in the Delhi
Prison Rules, 2018 (“DP Rules”), and the various principles for the grant of
premature release, as laid down in a catena of judgments, have not been taken
into account by the SRB at the time of considering the application of the
petitioner for premature release.
th
10. In particular, this Court notes the judgment dated 10 August, 2026,
passed by this Court in W.P.(CRL.) 2875/2025 and another connected
petition, wherein, it has been stated as follows:
“xxx xxx xxx


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
13:38:28
Page 4 of 6





xxx xxx xxx”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
13:38:28
Page 5 of 6

11. Thus, it is manifest that the various principles for the purpose of
considering an application for premature release have not been considered by
the SRB at the time of rejecting the application of the petitioner.
12. Accordingly, considering the facts and circumstances of the present
case, the present matter is remanded back to be considered by the SRB at its
next meeting, whenever the same is held, in the near future.
13. The SRB shall consider the various principles, as given in the aforesaid
judgment reproduced hereinabove, at the time of adjudicating the application
of the petitioner.
14. The concerned Jail Superintendent is directed to forward the case of the
petitioner to the SRB, so that the same is considered at the next meeting of
the SRB.
15. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition is accordingly
allowed and disposed of.
16. The pending application also stands disposed of.
17. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for
information and necessary compliance.


MINI PUSHKARNA, J
OCTOBER 29, 2026/ SK
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
13:38:28
Page 6 of 6