Refusal of remission is justified for habitual offenders convicted of heinous gang rape and abduction.

The petitioner, Tarik Kutubuddin Saiyed, was convicted for several serious offenses, including gang rape under Section 376(2)(g), kidnapping (Sections 363, 365, 366), and unnatural offenses (Section 377) of the IPC.

The conviction involved the abduction of a minor girl going to tuition, gang rape in a vehicle, and subsequent blackmail using video footage of the act.

After serving over 15 years of incarceration, the petitioner sought remission (early release).

The State Government of Gujarat, via a letter dated 22.12.2025, rejected the remission plea.

The petitioner filed the present application under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash that rejection and seek directions for his release.

1. Whether the State Government’s decision to deny the petitioner remission was legally sustainable given the nature of the offenses and the opinions of the advisory authorities.

2. Whether the petitioner demonstrated any illegality or irregularity in the respondent authorities' decision-making process.

Article 226 of the Constitution regarding the High Court's power of judicial review.

The grant of remission is a discretionary power of the State, necessitating the consideration of factors such as the nature of the crime, the conduct of the prisoner, and the opinions of the sentencing court and advisory committees.

Precedent of Navas @ Mulanavas v. State of Kerala (2024 INSC 215) regarding the assessment parameters for remission.

The Court observed that the respondent authorities followed a proper procedural course by soliciting opinions from various bodies, including the Advisory Committee and the Sessions Court that originally convicted the petitioner; all such opinions were negative.

The Court highlighted that the petitioner is a habitual offender with several other registrations and convictions.

The Court emphasized the "serious nature" of the offense, involving the abduction and blackmail of a prosecutrix.

Upon reviewing the jail remarks, the Court found the petitioner’s conduct to be unsatisfactory.

The Court determined that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any illegality or irregularity in the State’s refusal to grant remission, as the decision was based on relevant factors including public safety and the gravity of the crime.

The Special Criminal Application for release was dismissed, and the connected Criminal Misc. Application for parole leave was disposed of in light of the main petition's dismissal.