Premature release cannot be denied solely on offence gravity without a reasoned assessment of relevant factors.

The petitioner, Ravi, was convicted under Sections 302/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life.

He had remained in custody since 2008 and, as of 18 February 2026, had undergone 16 years and 4 months of actual custody, amounting to 20 years, 11 months and 21 days with remission.

The Sentence Review Board (“SRB”), by its decision dated 30 August/18 September 2024, rejected his request for premature release, and the rejection order dated 4 December 2024 relied on the gravity of the offence, his alleged arrest during emergency parole in another case in 2020, his alleged non-reformative attitude, age, and the possibility of reoffending.

The petitioner challenged that order, contending that he had been granted parole six times and furlough 21 times and that his overall and immediate jail conduct was satisfactory.

Whether the SRB’s rejection of the petitioner’s application for premature release was legally sustainable when it relied on the gravity of the original offence, alleged non-reformative attitude, and unreasoned apprehension of reoffending.

Whether the petitioner’s case was required to be reconsidered in accordance with the principles governing premature release, including post-conviction conduct, risk of reoffending, continued societal danger, and the purpose of continued incarceration.

The Court applied the Delhi Government’s 2004 Guidelines governing premature release, under which the petitioner claimed eligibility.

It relied principally on Ramesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2026:DHC:6455, which identified three relevant considerations: the convict’s propensity to reoffend assessed through jail conduct and antecedents; the purpose served by continued incarceration, including whether the convict remains a danger to society; and the socio-economic consequences of continued incarceration for the convict’s family.

The Court further held that the gravity of the original offence, the length of sentence, the possibility of a “wrong” or “negative” message to society, and unsupported police opposition are not, by themselves, relevant grounds for denying premature release.

Sustained good post-conviction conduct is a principal indicator, and progression from a regular prison to semi-open and open prisons with a satisfactory record is a material consideration.

The Court found that the SRB’s order merely stated that it had considered “all the facts and circumstances” and then relied on the gravity of the offence, the alleged possibility of reoffending, and the petitioner’s supposed non-reformative attitude, without explaining the evidentiary basis for those conclusions.

This reasoning was inconsistent with Ramesh, because the gravity of the original offence could not independently justify rejection, and the assessment of reoffending had to be grounded in cogent material concerning the petitioner’s antecedents and post-conviction conduct.

The Court also noted that the petitioner’s overall and immediate jail conduct had been found satisfactory, a factor that the SRB was required to meaningfully consider.

Since the impugned decision failed to demonstrate a proper application of the governing principles and did not provide adequate reasons, it could not be sustained.

The decision was to be communicated to the petitioner without delay.

The Court cautioned that reliance on irrelevant considerations or departure from the prescribed principles would be viewed seriously.

The petition was accordingly disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition if his grievance remained unaddressed.