Moti Alias Mohit vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 20.08.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 31.08.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010027352026
+ W.P.(CRL) 307/2026 & CRL.M.A. 2951/2026
MOTI ALIAS MOHIT .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Vrinda Bhandari and Ms.
Vanshita Gupta, Advocates.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC for State with
Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
J U D G M E N T
यत िक ¼ चेदं व Ł ण दै Ó ये जनेऽिभ þ ोहं मनु Õ या IJ रामिस।
अिच ß या य ° व धमा युयोिपम मा न ª Ö त Ö मादेनसो देव री å रषः॥
(Yat kiñcedaṃ varuṇa daivye jane'bhidrohaṃ manuṣyāścarāmasi,
Acittyā yattava dharmā yuyopima mā nastasmādenaso deva rīriṣaḥ.)
1. Extracted from the Rig Ved , the largest and oldest of the four sacred
texts of Hinduism, this verse is a prayer to the Lord Varun ( upholder of
cosmic law ) that we be not destroyed by our past errors committed due to
ignorance or thoughtlessness and we be cleansed and set free. We are
defined by not our worst mistakes, but by our next choices, as there is a
history to every halo and a potential to every shadow. To quote Oscar
W.P.(CRL) 307/2026 Page 1 of 40 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec4
5569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d155
70996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e2
6fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.08.31 10:47:52 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:31.08.2026
11:12:58
Wilde: “ No saint is without a past, no sinner is without a future ”. Every
darkness carries in it 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. Of course, every wrong deserves a
consequence; but every consequence must have a limit lest it became wrong
in itself. Kautilya’s Arthashastra made references to the elements of
reformative policy of sentencing that later came to be known as “remission”.
Release of convicted prisoners on sympathetic grounds prior to completion
of the term of imprisonment imposed on them has always been a significant
part of the ancient Hindu Dandashastra (quite similar to the present day
concepts of penology) and jurisprudence. There always existed a conscious
and consistent thought amongst the ancient thinkers of our country aimed at
reformation of criminals in order to achieve larger goal of peace in society
by minimisation of crime and criminogenic tendencies. The thinkers across
other parts of globe subsequently drew influence from those ancient
thoughts of ours and acknowledged that reformatory policies are more
productive than deterrent and/or retributory approach to crime and criminal.
The present decision is rooted in this philosophy.
2. The petitioner, convicted in case FIR No. 428/2004 of PS Defence
Colony for offence under Section 302/380/34 IPC, having undergone
imprisonment for a period more than 20 years without remission ( more than
25 years including remission ) as against the awarded punishment of life
imprisonment, has assailed and sought quashing of the communication
bearing no. F.No.18/62/25/HG/Prisons/3651-3652 dated 27.11.2025, which
conveyed the order/decision dated 16.10.2025 of the Sentence Review
W.P.(CRL) 307/2026 Page 2 of 40 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45
569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d155
70996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26
fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.08.31 10:47:33 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:31.08.2026
11:12:58
Board (SRB), whereby his request for premature release was rejected. It is
th
quite unfortunate that the presently assailed rejection is the 5 rejection of
th
his desperate cry for mercy. More unfortunate is that the 4 rejection dated
10.12.2024 of his request for premature release was set aside by a coordinate
bench of this court vide order dated 25.07.2025 and matter was remanded to
the Competent Authority for a reconsideration, but once again, his case for
premature release has been rejected by way of the order presently impugned.
3. I have heard Ms. Vrinda Bhandari, learned legal aid counsel on behalf
of petitioner and Mr. Amol Sinha, learned Additional Standing Counsel on
behalf of State. Both of them have very ably and wisely assisted me.
4. Succinctly stated, the circumstances relevant for present purposes are
as follows.
4.1 By way of judgment dated 26.02.2010, the petitioner was convicted
for offence under Section 302/380/34 IPC and by way of sentence order
dated 02.03.2010, punishment of imprisonment for life with fine was
imposed on him. The conviction as well as sentence was upheld by a
Division Bench of this court by way of judgment dated 31.10.2011 in
CRL.A.711/2010. The petitioner preferred a Special Leave Petition
(Criminal) 17035/2017, but that also was dismissed by the Supreme Court
by way of order dated 07.02.2020. Thence, the conviction for offence under
Section 302/380/34 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment against the
petitioner has attained finality.
W.P.(CRL) 307/2026 Page 3 of 40 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec455
69af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH
COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570
Digitally Signed 996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.08.31 10:47:13 +05'30'
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:31.08.2026
11:12:58
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
4.2 In the course of his life imprisonment, case of the petitioner for his
premature release was considered for the first time by the SRB meeting
dated 27.08.2021, but it was rejected on the grounds of the manner, gravity,
perversity and heinousness of the crime committed by him, as well as his
unsatisfactory jail conduct during his lodgment in the semi-open jail, and
possibility of his committing crime again.
4.3 For the second time, case of the petitioner for premature release was
considered by the SRB in meeting dated 30.06.2023, but was again rejected
for the reasons which are more or less copy-paste of the earlier reasons, the
only addition being that he had shown “ non reformative attitude ”. The said
order also vaguely added the word “ etc .” as the reason for rejection.
4.4 The third occasion for consideration of premature release of the
petitioner came up before the SRB in meeting dated 23.02.2024, but again
for same reasons as mentioned above, his case was rejected. This time,
additionally the SRB also recorded its opinion that the crime committed by
the petitioner was brutal and affected society at large, so releasing him
prematurely would not be in the interest of society.
4.5 Then came the fourth occasion for the SRB consideration of his
premature release in the meeting dated 10.12.2024, but once again, it was
rejected observing that the petitioner had committed murder of two persons
with knife blows and had stolen the belongings of the deceased. It was also
observed by SRB this time that in view of punishment awarded to the
petitioner during his confinement in semi-open jail, it appeared that he had
W.P.(CRL) 307/2026 Page 4 of 40 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec
45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1
5570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff80
1e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.08.31 10:46:54 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:31.08.2026
11:12:58
not lost his potential to commit crime.
4.6 By way of W.P.(CRL) 937/2025, the petitioner challenged the said
fourth rejection of his case for premature release. By way of order dated
25.07.2025, a coordinate bench of this court allowed the writ and remanded
the matter to SRB for reconsideration on the basis of guidelines laid down
by another coordinate bench of this court in the case titled: Asif Alias
Naeem v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. , W.P. (Crl.) No. 1/2025.
4.7 On the basis of the said order dated 25.07.2025 of the coordinate
bench of this court, case of the petitioner for premature release was again
placed before the SRB along with 33 more cases seeking premature release.
But once again, case of the petitioner for premature release was rejected by
SRB in its meeting dated 16.10.2025 by way of order/minutes, impugned in
the present writ petition.
5. It would be apposite to extract the relevant portion of the impugned
order/minutes of meeting dated 16.10.2025 of the SRB, which is as follows:
“ Item No. 50: The case ofMoti @ Mohit s/o Sh. Dhan Bahadur –
(Age-41 Yrs.)
(i) Background:
This case has been put up in compliance to the order dated
25.07.2025, passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in
W.P.(Crl.) No. 937/2-25 in the matter titled as Moti @ Mohit
versus State, NCT of Delhi.
(ii) Eligibility conditions:
Only after undergoing imprisonment for 20 years including
remission. This case has been considered under the policy/order
dated 16.07.2004 issued by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi i.e. policy
W.P.(CRL) 307/2026 Page 5 of 40 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45
569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d155
Digitally Signed 70996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26
fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.08.31 10:46:36 +05'30'
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:31.08.2026
11:12:58
Signature Not Verified
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
that was existing on the date of conviction.
(iii) Sentence details:
Moti @ Mohit S/o Sh. Dhan Bahadur is undergoing life
imprisonment in case FIR No. 428/2004, u/s 302/380/34 IPC, P.S.
Defence Colony, Delhi for murder of two persons & theft articles.
(iv) Deliberation:
As on 20.08.2025, the convict has undergone imprisonment of 20
years, 07 months & 20 days in actual and 24 years, 05 months &
23 days with remission. He has availed Parole 07 times and
Furlough 13 times.
As per record, the conduct of the convict is found to be
unsatisfactory being punishment dated 20.01.2018 for recovery of
02 gram tobacco in Semi Open jail since then the convict was
returned back to closed prisons.
The Board considered the latest reports received from Police
Social Welfare Department and took into account all the facts and
circumstances of the case. As per the Police Report dated
27.02.2024, the premature release of the convict is not
recommended.
After considering all the facts and circumstances under which the
offence was committed, i.e. murder of two persons and theft
articles, nature/gravity and perversity of the crime, age of the
convict, the Board is of the view that the propensity to commit
crime again by the convict cannot be ruled out. The Board cannot
merely look at the convict’s benefit, but the effect of the decision on
the society as a whole cannot be ignored.
It is also observed by the Board that the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has categorically held in Swamy Shraddananda (2008) 13 SCC
767.
“…the power of executive clemency is not only for the
benefit of the convict but what has to be borne in mind
is the effect of the decision on the family of the victims,
society as a whole and the precedent which it sets for
the future. Thus, the exercise of power depends upon
the facts and circumstances of each case and has to be
judged from case to case ….”
(v) Recommendation:
The Board after detailed deliberation and discussion, as outlined
above, unanimously decided to REJECT premature release of
convict Moti @Mohit S/o Sh. Dhan Bahadur at this stage.”
W.P.(CRL) 307/2026 Page 6 of 40 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec
45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
Digitally Signed serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15
570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801
e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
By:RAHUL YADAV
Date: 2026.08.31 10:46:19 +05'30'
Signing Date:31.08.2026
11:12:58
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
6. Against the above backdrop, I heard learned counsel for both sides,
who took me through the relevant judicial pronouncements in the course of
their marathon arguments.
6.1 Ms. Vrinda Bhandari learned counsel for petitioner, after taking me
through the above circumstances contended that the manner in which case of
the petitioner for premature release was rejected repeatedly shows complete
non-application of mind by the SRB, insofar as each of the rejection order is
practically copy-paste of the earlier order. It was contended that such
consideration amounts to no consideration at all. Learned counsel took me
through the report dated 10.10.2025 submitted before the superintendent of
the concerned jail by the Probation Officer of Tihar Jail and pointed out that
nothing at all adverse against the petitioner was recorded therein, so case of
the petitioner ought not to have been rejected by the SRB. Further, taking
me through the detailed police verification report dated 28.08.2025, learned
counsel for petitioner reiterated that even according to the said report, there
was nothing adverse against the petitioner, so his case ought not to have
been rejected by the SRB. Also referring to the Nominal Rolls dated
19.02.2026, learned counsel pointed out that the petitioner was repeatedly
released on furlough during the period of his incarceration and he always
surrendered in time, without any allegation of misuse of liberty. According
to learned counsel, the petitioner, currently undergoing life imprisonment for
his first and last crime is now a reformed individual. Learned counsel also
took me through medical records of daughter of the petitioner to show that
from the age of 03 months, she is suffering with a congenital ailment and
needs extensive medical care, which can be considered as one of the special
W.P.(CRL) 307/2026 Page 7 of 40 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45
569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
Digitally Signed serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557
0996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26f
a, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
By:RAHUL YADAV
Date: 2026.08.31 10:46:01 +05'30'
Signing Date:31.08.2026
11:12:58
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
grounds for releasing the petitioner.
6.2 On the other hand, Mr. Sinha learned Additional Standing Counsel
(ASC) strongly supported the impugned order of rejection of premature
release of the petitioner and opposed the present petition. In reference to a
previous judgment authored by this bench in the case of Vikram Yadav vs
State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2025:DHC:4946, learned ASC also informed
that the issue of reforms required in composition and functioning of the SRB
is now under consideration before a Division Bench of this court. Taking me
through the above extracted deliberations carried out by the SRB in case
pertaining the petitioner, it was emphasised by learned ASC that admittedly
the petitioner during his life imprisonment was awarded a jail punishment in
the year 2018 for which he was transferred from semi-open jail to closed
jail, which punishment, being a step in regression, lends credence to the
satisfaction of the SRB that the petitioner is presently incorrigible, so does
not deserve to be released back into the society. It was submitted by learned
ASC that while dealing with such cases the court ought not to get carried
away on the basis of misplaced sympathies in favour of the prisoner, since
the court cannot ignore the interest of the society at large. Learned ASC
emphatically submitted that the exercise of premature release is in the
domain of the executive branch of the State and the judicial branch of the
State cannot usurp that authority by interfering with the decisions of the
SRB. The learned ASC supported the decision of the SRB, also pointing out
that the petitioner was held guilty of a double murder and was arrested from
Indo-Nepal border when he was trying to flee away, and that shows the
dangerous criminal behaviour of the petitioner. Finally, the learned ASC
W.P.(CRL) 307/2026 Page 8 of 40 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45
569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
Digitally Signed serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557
0996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
By:RAHUL YADAV Date: 2026.08.31 10:45:23 +05'30'
Signing Date:31.08.2026
11:12:58
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
contended that even if this court is not satisfied with correctness of the
impugned order, the only course available is to direct reconsideration by
SRB and this court shall not direct release of the petitioner, because the
matter of release of the petitioner is only the executive discretion.
6.3 In rebuttal arguments, learned counsel for petitioner contended that
the stream of judicial precedents shows an increasing view of the courts in
favour of directing premature release of the prisoner instead of remanding
back for reconsideration. It was also argued that since the petitioner has
already suffered the earlier round of the so-called reconsideration, which
remains non-consideration in the eyes of law, this is a fit case to direct
forthwith release of the petitioner, instead of making him shuttle between
the SRB and this court.
7. In support of their respective arguments, both sides referred to certain
judicial precedents, which are as follows: Vijay Kumar Shukla vs State
NCT of Delhi and Anr. , 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7805; 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 Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine
SC 1211; Laxman Naskar vs Union of India, (2000) 2 SCC 595; 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; Satish @ Sabbe vs The State of Uttar Pradesh , SLP
W.P.(CRL) 307/2026 Page 9 of 40 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec4556
9af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH
COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
Digitally Signed serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d155709
96b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
By:RAHUL YADAV
Date: 2026.08.31 10:45:08 +05'30'
Signing Date:31.08.2026
11:12:58
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
(CRL). No. 8326 of 2019; Wahid Ahmed vs State of NCT of Delhi ,
2022:DHC:3690; Zafar Ul Islam vs State of NCT of Delhi , W.P.(Crl.)
No.2518/2022; State of Haryana & Ors. vs State of Daya Nand , [SLP
(CRL) No. 10687/2022] and Harpreet Singh vs State (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi), W.P.(Crl.) 463/2025. All these judicial pronouncements lay down
and reiterate same principles of law and same parameters, which have to be
kept in mind by the SRB and the court while dealing with the matter of
premature release of a prisoner. That being so, in the interest of brevity, the
present discussion refers to only a few and not each of those judgments.
7.1 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
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
W.P.(CRL) 307/2026 Page 10 of 40 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4af
ec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacc
a, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID -
7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d
15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff
801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.08.31 10:44:51 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:31.08.2026
11:12:58
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,
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
W.P.(CRL) 307/2026 Page 11 of 40 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec
45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15
570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e
26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.08.31 10:44:36 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:31.08.2026
11:12:58
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 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)
7.2 In the case of Gurvinder Singh vs State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi) ,
2024 SCC OnLine Del 4721, 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
W.P.(CRL) 307/2026 Page 12 of 40 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45
569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
Digitally Signed serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557
0996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa
By:RAHUL YADAV , cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.08.31 10:44:19 +05'30'
Signing Date:31.08.2026
11:12:58
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
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
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 .”
(emphasis supplied)
W.P.(CRL) 307/2026 Page 13 of 40 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec4
5569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15
Digitally Signed
570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e
26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
By:RAHUL YADAV Date: 2026.08.31 10:44:04 +05'30'
Signing Date:31.08.2026
11:12:58
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
7.3 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
incarceration which will result in defeating the said purpose.”
(emphasis supplied)
7.4 The learned ASC referred to the following observations of the
Supreme Court in the case of Laxman Naskar (supra):
“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
W.P.(CRL) 307/2026 Page 14 of 40 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec
45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15
570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801
e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.08.31 10:43:50 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:31.08.2026
11:12:58
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. ”
7.5 In the case of Satish @ Sabbe (supra), while dealing with the issue of
premature release of a convict facing life imprisonment and fine for the
offence of kidnapping for ransom, the Supreme Court held thus:
“17. A perusal of the Government Orders displays that the
statutory mandate on premature release has been completely
overlooked. The three-factor evaluation of (i) antecedents (ii)
conduct during incarceration and (iii) likelihood to abstain from
crime, under Section 2 of the UP Prisoners Release on Probation
Act, 1938, have been given a complete go-by. These refusals are
not based on facts or evidence, and are vague, cursory, and merely
unsubstantiated opinions of state authorities.
18. It would be gainsaid that length of the sentence or the gravity
of the original crime can’t be the sole basis for
refusing premature release. Any assessment regarding
predilection to commit crime upon release must be based on
antecedents as well as conduct of the prisoner while in
jail, and not merely on his age or apprehensions of the victims
and witnesses. As per the State’s own affidavit, the
conduct of both petitioners has been more than satisfactory. They
have no material criminal antecedents, and have served almost 16
years in jail (22 years including remission). Although being about
54 and 43 years old, they still have substantial years of life
remaining, but that doesn’t prove that they retain a propensity for
committing offences. The respondent-State’s repeated and
circuitous reliance on age does nothing but defeat the purpose of
remission and probation, despite the petitioners having met
all statutory requirements for premature release.
19. Indeed, the petitioners’ case is squarely covered by the ratio
W.P.(CRL) 307/2026 Page 15 of 40 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec4
5569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15
570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e
26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.08.31 10:43:37 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:31.08.2026
11:12:58
laid down by this court in Shor v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2020
SCC OnLine SC 626], which has later been followed in Munna v.
State of Uttar Pradesh [Order dated 21.08.2020 in WP(Crl) 4 of
2020], the relevant extract of which is reproduced as under:
“A reading of the order dated 22.01.2018 shows
that the Joint Secretary, Government of U.P. has
failed to apply his mind to the conditions of Section 2
of the U.P. Act. Merely repeating the fact that the
crime is heinous and that release of such a person
would send a negative message against the justice
system in the society are factors de hors Section 2.
Conduct in prison has not been referred to at all and
the Senior Superintendent of Police and the
District Magistrate confirming that the prisoner
is not “incapacitated” from committing the crime is
not tantamount to stating that he is likely to abstain
from crime and lead a peaceable life if released from
prison . Also having regard to the long incarceration of
29 years (approx.) without remission, we do not wish
to drive the petitioner to a further proceeding
challenging the order dated 22.01.2018 when we find
that the order has been passed mechanically
and without application of mind to Section 2 of the
U.P. Act.” [emphasis supplied]
20. It seems to us that the petitioners’ action of kidnapping was
nothing but a fanciful attempt to procure easy money, for which
they have learnt a painful life lesson . Given their age, their case
ought to be viewed through a prism of positivity. They retain the
ability to reintegrate with society and can spend many years
leading a peaceful, disciplined, and normal human life. Such a
hopeful expectation is further concritised by their conduct in jail.
It is revealed from the additional affidavit dated 05.09.2020 filed
by Anita @ Varnika (wife of Vikky) that during the course of
his incarceration in jail he has pursued as many as eight
distance-learning courses, which include (i) passing his
Intermediate Examination, (ii) learning computer hardware,
(iii) obtaining a degree in Bachelor of Arts; as well as
numerous certificates in (iv) food and nutrition, (v) human rights,
(vi) environmental studies. Vikky’s conduct shines as a bright light
of hope and redemption for many other incarcerated
prisoners. Compounded by their roots and familial obligations, we
believe it is extremely unlikely that the petitioners would commit
any act which could shatter or shame their familial dreams.
W.P.(CRL) 307/2026 Page 16 of 40 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afe
c45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d
15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff
801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.08.31 10:43:21 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:31.08.2026
11:12:58
21. In the present case, considering how the petitioners have
served nearly two decades of incarceration and have thus
suffered the consequences of their actions; a balance between
individual and societal welfare can be struck by granting
the petitioners conditional premature release, subject to
their continuing good conduct. This would both ensure that liberty
of the petitioners is not curtailed, nor that there is any increased
threat to society. Suffice to say that this order is not irreversible
and can always be recalled in the event of any future misconduct or
breach by the petitioners.”
(emphasis supplied)
7.6 In the case of V. Sriharan (supra), relied upon by learned ASC, the
Supreme Court held thus:
“74. Therefore, in the present juncture, when we take judicial
notice of the crime rate in our country, we find that criminals of
all types of crimes are on the increase. Be it white-collar crimes,
vindictive crimes, crimes against children and women, hapless
widows, old-aged parents, sexual offences, retaliation murder,
planned and calculated murder, through paid assassins,
gangsters operating in the developed cities indulging in killing
for a price, kidnapping and killing for ransom, killing by
terrorists and militants, organised crime syndicates, etc. are the
order of the day. While on the one side peace loving citizens
who are in the majority are solely concerned with their peaceful
existence by following the Rule of Law and aspire to thrive in
the society anticipating every protection and support from the
governance of the State and its administration, it is common
knowledge, as days pass on it is a big question mark whether
one will be able to lead a normal peaceful life without being
hindered at the hands of such unlawful elements, who enjoy in
many cases the support of very many highly placed persons. In
this context, it will be relevant to note the precepts of law which
are : to live honourably, to injure no other man and to render
everyone his due. There are murders and other serious offences
orchestrated for political rivalry, business rivalry, family
rivalry, etc., which in the recent times have increased manifold
and in this process, the casualty are the common men whose
day-to-day functioning is greatly prejudiced and people in the
helm of affairs have no concern for them. Even those who
propagate for lessening the gravity of imposition of severe
punishment are unmindful of such consequences and are only
keen to indulge in propagation of rescuing the convicts from
W.P.(CRL) 307/2026 Page 17 of 40 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afe
c45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1
5570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff8
01e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.08.31 10:43:07 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:31.08.2026
11:12:58
being meted out with appropriate punishments. We are at a loss
to understand as to for what reason or purpose such
propagation is carried on and what benefit the society at large
is going to derive.
...
...
94. As far as the argument based on ray of hope is concerned, it
must be stated that however much forceful the contention may
be, as was argued by Mr Dwivedi, the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the State, it must be stated that such ray of hope
was much more for the victims who were done to death and
whose dependants were to suffer the aftermath with no solace
left. Therefore, when the dreams of such victims in whatever
manner and extent it was planned, with reference to oneself, his
or her dependants and everyone surrounding him was
demolished in an unmindful and in some cases in a diabolic
manner in total violation of the Rule of Law which is prevailing
in an organised society, they cannot be heard to say only their
rays of hope should prevail and kept intact. For instance, in the
case relating to the murder of the former Prime Minister, in
whom the people of this country reposed great faith and
confidence when he was entrusted with such great responsible
office in the fond hope that he will do his best to develop this
country in all trusts, all the hope of the entire people of this
country was shattered by a planned murder which has been
mentioned in detail in the judgment [State v. Nalini, (1999) 5
SCC 253 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 691] of this Court which we have
extracted in para 157. Therefore, we find no scope to apply the
concept of ray of hope to come for the rescue of such hardened,
heartless offenders, which if considered in their favour will only
result in misplaced sympathy and again will be not in the
interest of the society. Therefore, we reject the said argument
outright.”
In the said case, the Supreme Court also elaborately discussed the scope of
judicial intervention on the aspect of remission and held thus:
“105. We, therefore, reiterate that the power derived from the
Penal Code for any modified punishment within the punishment
provided for in the Penal Code for such specified offences can
only be exercised by the High Court and in the event of further
appeal only by the Supreme Court and not by any other court in
this country. To put it differently, the power to impose a
modified punishment providing for any specific term of
W.P.(CRL) 307/2026 Page 18 of 40 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45
569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
Digitally Signed serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d155
70996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26
fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
By:RAHUL YADAV
Date: 2026.08.31 10:42:53 +05'30'
Signing Date:31.08.2026
11:12:58
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
incarceration or till the end of the convict's life as an alternate
to death penalty, can be exercised only by the High Court and
the Supreme Court and not by any other inferior court.
106. Viewed in that respect, we state that the ratio laid down
in Swamy Shraddananda (2) [Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State
of Karnataka, (2008) 13 SCC 767 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 113]
that a special category of sentence; instead of death; for a term
exceeding 14 years and put that category beyond application of
remission is well founded and we answer the said question in the
affirmative. We are, therefore, not in agreement with the opinion
expressed by this Court in Sangeet v. State of
Haryana [Sangeet v. State of Haryana, (2013) 2 SCC 452 :
(2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 611] that the deprival of remission power of
the appropriate Government by awarding sentences of 20 or 25
years or without any remission as not permissible is not in
consonance with the law and we specifically overrule the
same.”
7.7 The case of Daya Nand (supra) was relied upon by learned ASC in
support of his contention that this court can at the most direct
reconsideration, but cannot direct premature release while exercising the
power of judicial review. But in that case, the distinctive feature was that the
concerned authority did not even decide the issue of premature release one
way or the other despite the convict having undergone 12 years and 09
months of actual imprisonment. Besides, in that case the Supreme Court
opted also not to interfere with the premature release ordered by the High
Court, since the convict stood released 09 months back, so no purpose would
be served by sending him back in jail. In other judicial precedents, namely
Ram Chander (supra), Laxman Naskar (supra), Rajan (supra) and others,
relied upon by learned ASC also, it was laid down that while the court can
review the decision of the government in order to determine whether the
decision was arbitrary, but the court cannot usurp the power of the
W.P.(CRL) 307/2026 Page 19 of 40 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45
569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
Digitally Signed serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557
0996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
By:RAHUL YADAV cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.08.31 10:42:41 +05'30'
Signing Date:31.08.2026
11:12:58
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
government and grant remission itself; and that if the court finds that
exercise of power by the executive was arbitrary, the concerned authority
may be directed to reconsider the case.
7.8 In the case of Asif Alias Naeem (supra), which was relied upon by
the coordinate bench of this court while remanding the matter of the present
petitioner to SRB, the said coordinate bench held thus:
“17. The legal position admits of no dispute that no convict can
demand remission or premature release as a matter of right.
However, once the executive frames a policy and the prison
rules prescribe a structured process, the convict acquires a
right to a fair, meaningful, and non-arbitrary consideration
under that framework. The discretion is broad, but it is not
unstructured. It is confined by the governing policy, the prison
rules, and the discipline of reasons .
18. The policy dated 16th July, 2004, makes two features
explicit. First, eligibility after the stipulated period of actual
incarceration does not translate into automatic release, and the
SRB retains discretion. Second, the discretion must be exercised
by weighing the circumstances of the crime together with other
relevant factors, including whether the convict has lost the
potential for committing crime, the possibility of rehabilitation,
and the socio-economic condition of the family. The policy also
requires a comprehensive note dealing with the family and
social background, the circumstances of the offence, prison
conduct, and a reasoned recommendation. Thus, eligibility
triggers consideration. It does not guarantee release. At the
same time, the policy does not permit the SRB to treat the label
of the offence as a veto that makes the rest of the inquiry
redundant.
19. The Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 reinforce the same approach.
Rule 1244 states that premature release is anchored in
reformation, rehabilitation, and reintegration, while ensuring
protection of society, and it recognizes that conduct and
performance in prison bear directly on rehabilitative potential.
The Rules also contemplate that the SRB decision should be a
speaking one, and caution against treating the police view as
determinative in isolation.
W.P.(CRL) 307/2026 Page 20 of 40 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec4
5569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15
570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e
26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.08.31 10:42:28 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:31.08.2026
11:12:58
20. This insistence on reasons is not a cosmetic requirement.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that recording reasons
is an essential component of fairness in administrative and
quasi-judicial decision-making. A conclusion without an
intelligible rationale disables scrutiny and breeds arbitrariness.
In matters of premature release, the relevant considerations,
such as the circumstances of the offence, antecedents, conduct in
custody, and the likelihood of reoffending, are not mere
formalities to be mechanically recorded. They constitute the
foundation of the evaluative exercise.
21. The same discipline appears in Satish @ Sabbe v. State of
Uttar Pradesh , where the Supreme Court cautioned against
mechanical refusals that ignore statutory or policy criteria and
recognized that a constitutional court may step in where the
executive repeatedly fails to discharge its obligation of
meaningful consideration.
22. The gravity of the offence, even when undeniable, cannot
become the single note refrain that drowns out every other
mandatory consideration. In Satish @ Sabbe , the Supreme
Court cautioned that “gravity of the original crime cannot be
the sole basis” for refusing premature release, and that any
assessment of future criminality must be grounded in
antecedents and conduct during incarceration, rather than
vague apprehensions.”
(emphasis supplied)
7.9 So far as the argument advanced on behalf of State that life
imprisonment means imprisonment for life or imprisonment till last breath
and not for a shorter period except where executive clemency is granted, the
said argument was considered in a series of judicial pronouncements and
traversing through the same, the Supreme Court most recently in the case of
Ramasrey @ Fakkad vs State of Uttar Pradesh, 2026 INSC 764 held thus:
“12. .........The paragraphs reproduced by us above clearly
stipulate that when a sentence awarded is for imprisonment for
life without the categorical addition of ‘without remission’, the
power of the State under Section 432 Cr.PC is unaffected and
such an application would be maintainable. In those select few
W.P.(CRL) 307/2026 Page 21 of 40 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45
569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
Digitally Signed serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557
0996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa
, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
By:RAHUL YADAV
Date: 2026.08.31 10:42:15 +05'30'
Signing Date:31.08.2026
11:12:58
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
cases where the ‘without remission’ condition is utilised, which
is obviously done so, in the attending facts of that case keeping
in view the gravity of crime, nature of offence and the fact that
reduction of the sentence therein to an ‘ordinary sentence’
would be unjust, the statutory right being denuded, cannot be
termed to be offensive to the Constitution.”
7.10 In the most recent ruling while dealing with the scope of consideration
of premature release and powers of judicial review, the Supreme Court in the
case of Rohit Chaturvedi vs State of Uttarakhand & Ors. , 2026 SCC
OnLine SC 865 held thus:
“5.4...... In such circumstances, remanding the matter to the
very authority which has already taken a firm view against the
petitioner would amount to an empty formality. The
controversy before this Court, therefore, appears not to be one
of absence of consideration, but the legality and sustainability of
the conclusion already reached. In that light, remand may not
be directed mechanically where it would not serve any
substantive purpose. Considering that the petitioner has
already undergone more than twenty-two (22) years of
incarceration and all relevant material is already before this
Court, relegating the petitioner to another round of
administrative consideration would only prolong the
proceedings unnecessarily. Sending the matter to the very
same authority for reconsideration would be futile and not
serve the interests of justice, particularly when the basis of that
rejection is already fully articulated before this Court on
merits. We, therefore, proceed to examine the case on merits.
...
...
6.4. In Satish v. State of U.P., (2021) 14 SCC 580 (“Satish”),
this Court held that neither the length of the sentence nor the
gravity of the original offence can, by themselves, constitute
the sole basis for refusing premature release. Any assessment
regarding the likelihood of reoffending upon release must
instead be founded on the antecedents of the prisoner and his
conduct while in custody, rather than merely on age or
apprehensions expressed by victims or witnesses. The Court
further observed that although remission cannot be claimed as a
matter of right, once the appropriate legislature has enacted a
law governing remission, the executive cannot indirectly defeat
W.P.(CRL) 307/2026 Page 22 of 40 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec
45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15
570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801
e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.08.31 10:42:02 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:31.08.2026
11:12:58
or subvert its mandate. It was also held that where executive
authorities fail to discharge their statutory obligations despite
judicial directions, a Constitutional Court exercising powers of
judicial review may itself intervene and secure compliance
through the issuance of a writ of mandamus. Having regard to
the fact that the petitioners in Satish had undergone nearly two
decades of incarceration and had suffered the consequences of
their actions, the Court sought to strike a balance between
individual reformation and societal welfare by directing their
conditional premature release, subject to continued good
conduct. Consequently, the State Government was directed to
release the prisoners on probation under Section 2 of the U.P.
Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938 within two weeks.
...
...
8.4. Fourthly, the petitioner's case deserves to be considered in
light of the reformative theory underlying the modern criminal
justice system. The object of punishment is not merely
retribution, but also the reformation and rehabilitation of the
offender so as to enable his eventual reintegration into society.
In Mohd. Giasuddin v. State of A.P., (1977) 3 SCC 287 : 1977
SCC (Cri) 496, Krishna Iyer, J., while emphasizing the
reformative philosophy of sentencing, quoted George Bernard
Shaw's observation that: “If you are to punish a man
retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you
must improve him and men are not improved by injuries.” The
learned Judge also observed that modern penology regards
sentencing as a process of reshaping a person who has
deteriorated into criminality and that society itself has a vital
stake in the rehabilitation of the offender as a means of social
defence. The reformative approach to punishment, therefore,
constitutes an integral component of criminal jurisprudence and
remission policies are founded upon this principle. In the
present case, the petitioner has undergone more than twenty-two
(22) years of incarceration and his custody certificate records
that his conduct during imprisonment has been good. The
recommendation of the State Government for his premature
release also indicates that the petitioner's conduct and
rehabilitation have been found satisfactory by the competent
authorities. Continued incarceration in such circumstances
would run contrary to the reformative object underlying
remission and premature release policies particularly, when his
co-accused has already been released.”
(emphasis supplied)
W.P.(CRL) 307/2026 Page 23 of 40 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45
569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557
0996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa
, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.08.31 10:41:47 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:31.08.2026
11:12:58
8. Falling back to the present case, as held in the case of Vikram Yadav
(supra) { in which I had the occasion to elaborately understand and explain
the scope similar to the present proceedings }, the parameters to test such
orders have to be drawn from the policy framed by the Government of NCT
of Delhi by way of Order No.F.18/5/94/Home (Genl) dated 16.07.2004. That
is also the admitted position from both sides. According to the petitioner, the
said policy of the year 2004 was not adhered to by SRB in his case, while
according to the respondent, it was otherwise.
8.1 For the sake of convenience, the relevant portion of the said policy of
the year 2004 is extracted below:
“Eligibility for premature release:-
3.1 Every convicted prisoner whether male or female undergoing
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
W.P.(CRL) 307/2026 Page 24 of 40 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569a
f3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT
OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003,
st=Delhi,
Digitally Signed serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996
b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
By:RAHUL YADAV
Date: 2026.08.31 10:41:35 +05'30'
Signing Date:31.08.2026
11:12:58
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
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.
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”
9. In the backdrop of rival submissions as detailed above, the first crucial
question to be considered is as to whether the impugned order suffers the
vice of non-application of mind. If that be so, the impugned order would be
liable to be trashed on this ground itself. It is a matter of liberty of a human
W.P.(CRL) 307/2026 Page 25 of 40 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afe
c45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1
5570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff80
1e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.08.31 10:41:22 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:31.08.2026
11:12:58
being, who has, of course, no right to be released premature, but who
certainly has a right to be considered for premature release, if he is eligible.
And it is application of mind only, which would furnish foundation to the
claim of the State that case of the petitioner was duly considered.
9.1 In the present case, one of the most glaring indicators of non-
application of mind, which I find is as follows. The arguments in the present
case were partly heard on 11.05.2026 and it was pointed out by learned
counsel for petitioner that the manner in which the Police Verification
Report was submitted is a strong indicator of clear non-application of mind.
It was pointed out by learned counsel that the Police Verification Report
dated 28.08.2025 was strongly in favour of the petitioner when it was placed
before the concerned DCP for being transmitted to SRB, but in his covering
communication dated 15.09.2025 the DCP wrote that: “ as per the report,
premature release of the convict Moti @ Mohit S/o Dhan Bahadur is not
recommended ”. It was argued that the concerned DCP did not care to go
through even the crisp 1½ page Police Verification Report. On this aspect, it
was considered appropriate, so the concerned DCP was called upon to
explain, if so desired. The relevant extract of order dated 11.05.2026 is:
“3. Broadly speaking, the SRB rejected the early release of the
petitioner mainly on the basis of report of the Social Welfare
Department and the police report. The Social Welfare
Department report, rather supports case of the petitioner. When
it comes to police verification report dated 15.09.2025, in the
covering page of the report, the Deputy Commissioner of Police,
South District recorded that as per verification report, pre-
mature release of the petitioner is not recommended. But the
verification report annexed with that communication of the DCP
is to the contrary. According to learned counsel for the
petitioner, the concerned DCP mechanically wrote in the
communication dated 15.09.2025 that pre-mature release of the
W.P.(CRL) 307/2026 Page 26 of 40 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec455
69af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH
COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
Digitally Signed serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557
0996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
By:RAHUL YADAV cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.08.31 10:41:08 +05'30'
Signing Date:31.08.2026
11:12:58
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
petitioner is not recommended as per report. I find substance in
the submission that the DCP concerned, apparently did not even
bother to read the report.
4. Before proceeding further, it is considered appropriate that
the concerned DCP be given an opportunity to explain, if he so
desires, the circumstances in which he recommended case of the
petitioner not to be fit for pre-mature release. For that purpose,
learned ASC shall convey to the concerned DCP about an
opportunity.”
Accordingly, the concerned DCP submitted explanation dated 12.05.2026,
but without explaining anything. Rather, in the said explanation, the
concerned DCP went on to improvise and also observed those aspects which
did not form part of the Police Verification Report dated 28.08.2025. The
relevant extract of the said explanation of the DCP is as below:
“4. That as per the verification report, the convict was found to
be involved in the gruesome double murder cum theft case. It
was seen from the record that he was arrested from Indo-Nepal
Border.
5. Further, there is no apparent source of income of accused's
family. Also, the neighbors were not found familiar with the
convict or his family.
6. Moreover, the convict Moti @ Mohit was found actively
involved in committing the offence of the present case. Based on
the above details filled in the check list form the case of convict
Moti@ Mohit for pre-mature release was not found fit for
recommendation and accordingly, the same was forwarded as
"Not Recommended" in the verification report.
However, The undersigned shall be more careful and attentive
while submitting reports to SRB and shall ensure that the
reports are concise and precise.”
I am in absolute agreement with learned counsel for petitioner that the said
non-recommendation by the concerned DCP, which formed one of the bases
of the impugned order was blinded by total non-application of mind and
consequently, the impugned order also suffers percolation of the same vice.
W.P.(CRL) 307/2026 Page 27 of 40 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45
569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
Digitally Signed serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557
0996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa
, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
By:RAHUL YADAV
Date: 2026.08.31 10:40:57 +05'30'
Signing Date:31.08.2026
11:12:58
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
9.2 Further, as mentioned above, the operative part of the impugned
order/minutes of meeting dated 16.10.2025 of SRB are virtually copy-paste
of the minutes of earlier meetings. It appears from the said wordings of the
impugned order that the SRB in meeting dated 16.10.2025 did not apply
mind afresh. It is trite that every instrumentality of State, be it judicial or
administrative, while deciding an issue must author the decision in such a
manner that deciphers what worked in the mind of the authority concerned.
The court must have some material before it to examine whether there was
proper application of mind or not. In the present case, there is nothing on
record to suggest that the SRB in meeting dated 16.10.2025 applied mind
afresh, instead of just parroting the minutes of the earlier meetings.
9.3 In the case of Rohit Chaturvedi (supra), the Supreme Court reiterated
the settled principle of law that any order affecting rights of a person and
particularly his liberty must be with reasons and must reflect due application
of mind; and that recording of reasons is not an empty formality, but a
safeguard against arbitrariness and it ensures transparency, fairness and
accountability in the decision making. The Supreme Court emphasized that
absence of reasons renders such decisions bald and makes it impossible to
ascertain whether the relevant factors were duly considered or not. In the
present case, I am of the considered view that the impugned order is liable to
be set aside on the ground of non-application of mind.
10. Proceeding further, as mentioned above, in the case of Vikram Yadav
(supra), I examined in detail the working and composition of SRB while
trying to analyze the reason behind such mechanical orders passed by the
W.P.(CRL) 307/2026 Page 28 of 40 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af
3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT
OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003,
st=Delhi,
Digitally Signed
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996
b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
By:RAHUL YADAV cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.08.31 10:40:46 +05'30'
Signing Date:31.08.2026
11:12:58
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
SRB, and observed thus:
“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.
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
W.P.(CRL) 307/2026 Page 29 of 40 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec4
5569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d155
Digitally Signed
70996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26
fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
By:RAHUL YADAV Date: 2026.08.31 10:40:34 +05'30'
Signing Date:31.08.2026
11:12:58
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
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 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.”
(emphasis supplied)
But despite that discussion ( pronounced on 11.06.2025 ), the authorities have
opted to remain stoically intransigent and disinterested in streamlining the
SRB working and composition.
11. Apart from the aforesaid aspect of complete non-application of mind
by the SRB while considering the case of the petitioner ( which in itself is a
W.P.(CRL) 307/2026 Page 30 of 40 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec455
69af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH
COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
Digitally Signed serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570
996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
By:RAHUL YADAV Date: 2026.08.31 10:40:23 +05'30'
Signing Date:31.08.2026
11:12:58
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
sufficient ground to set aside the impugned order ), I have gone a step deeper
to analyze the individual merits in case of the petitioner.
11.1 Admittedly, the petitioner is first-time offender and has no
objectionable antecedents. In other words, petitioner is admittedly not a
habitual and/or an occupational criminal. That, to my mind is a vital factor in
determining the possibility of his reformation and grant of premature release.
11.2 By way of communication dated 10.10.2025, the concerned Probation
Officer forwarded the Social Investigation Report related to the petitioner to
the concerned Jail Superintendent for perusal of the SRB. That report was
written by the Probation Officer after interaction with the petitioner and on
the basis of documents available in the jail. The circumstances mentioned in
the said report, as relevant for present purposes are: that at the time of the
offence, the petitioner was aged 19 years and at the time of furnishing the
report, he was aged 40 years; that the petitioner qualified graduation from
jail, where he is working as VC Sewadar and also got married during the
period of his incarceration; that the petitioner plans to continue his restaurant
job in future; that jail conduct of the petitioner during past one year was
found satisfactory as per nominal roll; that family of petitioner consists of
his widowed mother, his wife, his younger brother and daughter; and that as
per jail record, the petitioner had availed parole seven times and furlough ten
times. According to that report, the nominal rolls recorded overall conduct of
petitioner in jail as unsatisfactory, because for a solitary misconduct of
possession of a prohibited article ( which was two gram tobacco ), he had
been awarded jail punishment on 20.01.2018.
W.P.(CRL) 307/2026 Page 31 of 40 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec455
69af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH
COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
Digitally Signed serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570
996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
By:RAHUL YADAV cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.08.31 10:40:10 +05'30'
Signing Date:31.08.2026
11:12:58
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
11.3 It would also be pertinent to take a note of the analysis and evaluation
of the case of the petitioner carried out by the Probation Officer in the said
Social Investigation Report, and the same is extracted below:
“ The convict has undergone 19 years and 07 months inside the
jail including undertrial period. He has availed parole/furlough
multiple times. During this time he has not committed any crime,
which shows his willingness to comply with the conditions
parole/furlough. In addition to it, it also shows that he is
harmless to the society. As per jail records there is no other case
pending against the convict.
Upon interacting with him inside the jail, the undersigned was
conveyed by the convict that he worked as a Store Sahayak,
Plumber, Control Room Sahayak, Office Sewadar and currently
working as VC Sewadar. He is earning Rs.10,000/month, a part
of which he sends to his family. The convict also conveyed that
he works as an attendant at a restaurant in Noida when goes for
his parole/furlough. The convict was also out for about year or
so (06.07.2023-08.10.2024) where he worked as an attendant in
Shree Krishna Restaurant in Noida and earned his living and
supported his family. This shows that the convict has engaged
himself in doing meaningful work and has been showing
responsibility towards his family.
When released, he plans to continue working as an attendant in
a restaurant and earn his living. The convict is determined to
reintegrate fully into his community and family ensuring their
socio-economic stability and well being.”
11.4 Then comes the Police Verification Report dated 28.08.2025 of the
SHO concerned, forwarded to the concerned DCP by the concerned ACP.
According to the same, the total criminal involvement of the petitioner is
only in the present case and he does not belong to any criminal
group/gang/syndicate. The said police verification report categorically
records that the petitioner does not have propensity to commit crime again
on being released, and that there is no factor on which his premature release
W.P.(CRL) 307/2026 Page 32 of 40 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec4
5569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d155
70996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26
fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.08.31 10:39:59 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:31.08.2026
11:12:58
can be opposed. The report further mentions that no act of indiscipline or
untoward incident including acts of aggression or violence was reported
against the petitioner when he was released on bail/parole/furlough. Despite
such specific report of the SHO concerned, forwarded by the ACP
concerned, in his covering letter, the concerned DCP arbitrarily stated that
premature release of the petitioner is not recommended.
11.5 While considering the socio-economic status of petitioner, it would
also be relevant to keep in mind, his family circumstances. Annexure P-12 to
the petition is the medical record of daughter of the petitioner, according to
which since the age of 03 months, the child is unfortunately suffering with a
congenital disease, namely SW-CAH with DSD ( salt wasting congenital
adrenalin hyperplasia with disorder of sex development ). As regards the said
medical record, learned ASC had objected on the ground that the same was
not before the SRB at the time of passing the impugned order. Correct. But it
it was the duty of the Probation Officer to collect those records from family
of the petitioner and place the same before the SRB. The petitioner cannot be
penalized on this count.
12. I have also examined the issue from perspective of the State as regards
rejection of case of the petitioner for premature release. Certainly, the
submission of learned ASC is correct that the court should not get carried
away by misplaced sympathies in favour of prisoner at the cost of security of
the society at large. But that does not mean that in the name of security of
the society, the court should ignore all other circumstances which convey an
impression that the prisoner has reformed himself after serving such
W.P.(CRL) 307/2026 Page 33 of 40 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec4556
9af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH
COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
Digitally Signed serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d155709
96b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
By:RAHUL YADAV
Date: 2026.08.31 10:39:46 +05'30'
Signing Date:31.08.2026
11:12:58
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
prolonged incarceration.
12.1 According to the respondent/State, the only reason for rejecting the
case of the petitioner for premature release is the punishment awarded to him
in prison. That punishment was awarded way back in the year 2018,
whereby the petitioner was transferred from semi-open jail to closed jail; and
the said offence alleged against the petitioner was that he was found in
possession of two grams tobacco. Apart from that, there is no jail
punishment alleged against the petitioner across the period of his
incarceration for more than 20 years. For such jail offence, denial of
premature release would not just be disproportionate response of the State,
but also double jeopardy in the sense that the petitioner already stood
punished for that jail offence of 2018 by way of his transfer from semi-open
jail to closed jail. More importantly, even after the said jail offence of 2018,
the petitioner was repeatedly released on furlough. For possession of two
grams tobacco while being in semi-open jail, the petitioner cannot be
penalized till eternity.
12.2 Another reason advanced on behalf of State in support of denial of
premature release to petitioner was that as regards the crime for which he is
undergoing life imprisonment, the petitioner was arrested from Indo-Nepal
Border while trying to flee. To say the least, the manner in which and the
place from where the petitioner was arrested has no relevance at all to grant
premature release in the light of above narrated factual and legal matrix.
12.3 Another reason advanced on behalf of State to justify denial of
W.P.(CRL) 307/2026 Page 34 of 40 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec455
69af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH
COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
Digitally Signed serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570
996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
By:RAHUL YADAV cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.08.31 10:39:32 +05'30'
Signing Date:31.08.2026
11:12:58
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
premature release to petitioner is that the crime committed by him was
gruesome. At the cost of repetition, it is observed that the same was his first
and last crime. Of course, the double murder, followed by theft is indeed a
serious crime. But one also cannot ignore that the said crime took place way
back in the year 2004 and the trial court by way of reasoned order did not
find it a fit case to award death penalty, so life imprisonment was awarded.
The petitioner has already undergone incarceration for more than 20 years.
Not that due to passage of time the inherent perversity of the crime per se
diminishes in any manner, but for the purposes of meaningful sentencing, on
account of such long incarceration as suffered by the petitioner, the
perversity must be visualized as faded. The wound suffered by kith and kin
of the deceased persons which were fresh in the year 2004, 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 ever be granted opportunity to reform
himself. The life imprisonment, by its very nature is awarded for gruesome
crimes, where the appropriate punishment falls slightly short of awarding
death sentence. A punishment, to be scientific has to have an end somewhere
during lifetime of the convict.
12.4 So far as the argument of propensity to commit further crime is
concerned, which according to the State is one of the reasons in the present
case to deny premature release to the petitioner, as mentioned above, in his
detailed Police Verification Report forwarded by the ACP concerned, it was
specifically observed by the concerned SHO that the petitioner has no
propensity of committing crime if released from jail. Merely because the
W.P.(CRL) 307/2026 Page 35 of 40 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45
569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
Digitally Signed serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d155
70996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26
By:RAHUL YADAV fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.08.31 10:38:59 +05'30'
Signing Date:31.08.2026
11:12:58
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
petitioner is of young age of 40 years, it cannot be presumed that he has
propensity to commit crime. For, mere attainment of older physical age
cannot lead to a presumption of lesser or reduced chances of repeating
crime. Bodily strength has no nexus with propensity to commit crime. The
propensity to commit crime has to be analysed by examining reformative
ascension of the prisoner on the basis of cogent material. In the present case,
as mentioned above during the period of his incarceration, the petitioner
completed his graduation from jail and also worked in jail in different
capacities across variety of occupations, ranging from store assistant,
plumber, control room assistant, office attendant, and even VC attendant.
Even during the period when he was released on parole or furlough, the
petitioner kept himself gainfully occupied by working as attendant in
restaurants in Noida to earn livelihood for family. In fact, the Social
Investigation Report of the Probation Officer explicitly records that the
petitioner on being released plans to continue working in a restaurant and he
is determined to reintegrate fully into his community and family, ensuring
their socio-economic stability and wellbeing.
12.5 Therefore, de hors the issue of non-application of mind, even on
petitioner’s own merit, he deserves to come out of jail now instead of
suffering further unnecessary and unproductive incarceration. Leaving the
petitioner remain dumped till his last breath can be validation of the different
other theories of punishment in the form of the deterrence or retribution or
prevention, but would completely demolish the reformatory idea of
punishment, and consequently would defeat the currently recognized tenet of
purposive sentencing.
W.P.(CRL) 307/2026 Page 36 of 40 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec455
69af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH
COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570
996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.08.31 10:38:47 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:31.08.2026
11:12:58
13. The above discussion leaves no doubt that the impugned order
rejecting the case of the petitioner for premature release is not sustainable in
the eyes of law, because it was tainted by non-application of mind, which
vice started from the report of the DCP and percolated down into the
consideration by the SRB, coupled with the mechanical manner of the so-
called deliberations by SRB. The impugned order also must fail when tested
on individual merits of the petitioner, as described above.
14. The next query to which this court must proceed is as to whether this
court should simply set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for
fresh consideration by the next SRB ( whenever the same is convened ) or this
court should direct forthwith premature release of the petitioner. For the
reasons mentioned hereafter, I am of the considered and firm view, guided
by the principles laid down in the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in
the case of Rohit Chaturvedi (supra) that remand of the matter in this case
would not be an appropriate judicial response to the State’s apathy.
14.1 The above discussion amply establishes that case of the petitioner for
premature release was dealt with by the SRB in quite unscientific and casual
manner, that too repeatedly. I have also deliberated upon as to what led to
such glaring non-application of mind by the concerned DCP as well as the
SRB. The conclusion I reach is that it is mainly because of the composition
and working of the SRB, which was held in the case of Vikram Yadav
(supra) to be quite deficient. It is as if the concerned authorities in a
mechanical manner ( if not biased with criminophobia ), opted to ignore such
W.P.(CRL) 307/2026 Page 37 of 40 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45
569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557
0996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.08.31 10:38:37 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:31.08.2026
11:12:58
vital circumstances as enumerated above. Sending the matter back to the
same ecosystem of same working patterns and same composition would not
just be non-productive exercise but also to a certain extent be shirking away
from duty of this constitutional court to render justice to the petitioner.
14.2 It is not just that the State opted to completely ignore the above quoted
reforms in the composition and working of the SRB across a period of more
than one year ( Vikram Yadav judgment was pronounced on 11.06.2025 ), the
unaltered SRB opted to even ignore specific order dated 25.07.2025 of a
coordinate bench of this court, whereby the earlier decision of the SRB
against the present petitioner was set aside and the matter was remanded to
SRB for reconsideration. In the said order dated 25.07.2025, the coordinate
bench of this court explicitly cited the earlier judgment of Asif Alias Naeem
(supra) as guidelines for carrying out fresh consideration, but even in fresh
consideration ( which was as discussed above virtually no consideration at
all ) those guidelines were completely disdained. To say the least, such
obstinacy on the part of instrumentality of State entrusted with protection of
human liberty deserves nothing but condemnation in strongest expressions.
14.3 Of course, the issue of premature release falls in the domain of the
executive, and the judicial organ of the State has power of judicial review.
The issue is where the executive organ of the State opts to turn blind eye to
the abovementioned plethora of judicial verdicts including Asif Alias Naeem
(supra), laying down specific guidelines, should a constitutional court be so
helpless that it finds no option but to throw the ball back into the court of the
executive, reducing the aggrieved prisoner to a ping-pong ball. In my view,
W.P.(CRL) 307/2026 Page 38 of 40 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45
569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557
Digitally Signed
0996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
By:RAHUL YADAV Date: 2026.08.31 10:38:27 +05'30'
Signing Date:31.08.2026
11:12:58
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
sending the petitioner back to the door of SRB would not be conscionable.
14.4 There is another significant aspect. As mentioned above, the covering
communication dated 15.09.2025 of the concerned DCP was totally contrary
to the Police Verification Report, which was being forwarded by him to the
SRB, therefore, the concerned DCP was granted opportunity to explain.
Instead of gracefully accepting it to be a bona fide error, the DCP not just
tried to justify his non-recommendation but even improvised the stand in a
vindictive manner. And the State wants this court to remand the case to same
set up. I find no reason to believe that if remanded, case of the petitioner
would be dealt in any better manner.
14.5 Then, this is not the first occasion when the SRB considered case of
the petitioner for premature release and rejected it. As described above, this
is the fifth occasion when the petitioner was denied premature release, that
too despite the coordinate bench having brought to the notice of SRB the
judicially sanctified guidelines to be followed by SRB, but those guidelines
were again flagrantly slighted. If now again the matter is remanded and the
SRB opts to repeat its stereotyped response, the petitioner will again have to
approach this court and looking at overflowing dockets of this court dealing
with almost 100 cases every day, one cannot predict when he will get chance
to be heard. In the meanwhile, the constant suffering of incarceration will
lead to frustration and possibly reversal of his reformation.
15. In view of above discussion, this petition is allowed and the impugned
order/minutes of meeting dated 16.10.2025 of the Sentence Review Board to
W.P.(CRL) 307/2026 Page 39 of 40 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec4
5569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d155
70996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26
fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.08.31 10:38:16 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:31.08.2026
11:12:58
the extent of rejection of case of the petitioner for premature release is
quashed and consequently, the petitioner is directed to be released
forthwith from jail, where he is undergoing the sentence of life
imprisonment imposed on him in the case FIR No. 428/2004 of PS Defence
Colony for offence under Section 302/380/201/411/34 IPC.
15.1 For compliance, copy of this judgment be immediately forwarded to
the concerned Jail Superintendent.
15.2 Copy of this judgment be also sent to the Chairperson of Sentence
Review Board, Delhi and the Director General of Prisons, Delhi with the
expectation that the observations made herein ( especially in paragraph 10 )
would receive due and serious consideration at the appropriate level, and that
the concerned quarters would undertake a meaningful deliberation on the
composition, working and efficacy of the Sentence Review Board, with a
view to addressing the concerns flagged in this judgment and taking
appropriate corrective measures, wherever warranted.
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec455
69af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH
COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570
996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.08.31 10:37:52 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
AUGUST 31, 2026/ ry
W.P.(CRL) 307/2026 Page 40 of 40 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:31.08.2026
11:12:58