Delhi HC Sends Gang-Rape Convict’s Release Plea Back, Says Board Must Consider Prison Rules, Not Just Crime’s Heinousness

In brief

The question

1. Whether the SRB’s rejection of the petitioner’s premature-release application, based on the serious and heinous nature of the offence without considering the applicable guidelines and principles, required reconsideration.

The court held

The Court allowed and disposed of the petition, remitting the petitioner’s application to the SRB for consideration at its next meeting in accordance with the principles referred to in Ramesh.

It also directed

The concerned Jail Superintendent was directed to forward the petitioner’s case to the SRB.

The Court did not order the petitioner’s immediate premature release; the pending application was also disposed of.

01Facts

The petitioner, serving a sentence of life imprisonment imposed on 10 June 2016 for offences including gang rape and related offences, sought premature release.

pp. 1–2

The Sentence Review Board (SRB), by decision pursuant to its Minutes of Meeting dated 14 January 2026, rejected his application.

pp. 1–2

He challenged the rejection under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, arguing that the SRB relied only on the heinous nature of the offence and did not apply the relevant premature-release principles.

pp. 1–2, 4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the SRB’s rejection of the petitioner’s premature-release application, based on the serious and heinous nature of the offence without considering the applicable guidelines and principles, required reconsideration.

pp. 2, 4–6

ii.2. Whether the Court should direct the petitioner’s immediate premature release or remit his application to the SRB for fresh consideration.

p. 2, 6

03Law Applied

The petition invoked Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the BNSS.

p. 2

The Court referred to the guidelines in the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, and to the principles governing premature release discussed in Ramesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr., W.P.(CRL.) 2875/2025 and a connected petition, decided on 10 August 2026.

pp. 4–5

The judgment does not reproduce the relevant passages or set out the individual principles; it holds that the SRB must consider those guidelines and principles when deciding an application for premature release.

pp. 4–6

Provisions in the judgment · 9 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 366 Section 342 Section 395 Section 397 Section 412 Section 506 Section 34

Arms Act, 1959 Section 25

04Reasoning

The SRB’s minutes showed that the sole stated basis for rejecting the application was the serious, heinous and grave nature of the offence.

p. 2, 4

The Court found that the SRB had not taken into account the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, or the premature-release principles identified in the Court’s prior judgment.

pp. 4–6

Since those matters had not been considered, the rejection could not stand as a properly reasoned determination; the appropriate remedy was reconsideration by the SRB, rather than an order granting immediate release.

p. 6

05Holding

The Court allowed and disposed of the petition, remitting the petitioner’s application to the SRB for consideration at its next meeting in accordance with the principles referred to in Ramesh.

p. 6

The concerned Jail Superintendent was directed to forward the petitioner’s case to the SRB.

p. 6

The Court did not order the petitioner’s immediate premature release; the pending application was also disposed of.

p. 6

LawLens.Delhi High Court

Original Court PDF