Delhi High Court
Criminal LawAdministrative and Public Law

Remission of life sentence also ends default jail term for unpaid fine, Delhi High Court rules

Mohd Yunus vs State Nct Of Delhi And Anr & Anr.

Delhi High CourtJUDGMENT: October 01, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Remission of life sentence also ends default jail term for unpaid fine, Delhi High Court rules. Mohd Yunus vs State Nct Of Delhi And Anr & Anr.. Delhi High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The petitioner was convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of ₹50,000, with two years’ simple imprisonment in default of payment.

Source reference: p. 2

His conviction and sentence were upheld by the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court dismissed his special leave petition.

Source reference: p. 2

The Sentence Review Board (SRB), by order dated 5 February 2026, remitted the unexpired term of sentence of the petitioner and other life convicts.

Source reference: pp. 2–3

The petitioner remained in custody because he had not paid the fine, and the respondents relied on Rule 1176 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 to justify his continued detention.

Source reference: p. 3
02

Issues

Whether Rule 1176 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, permits continued detention to serve a fine-default sentence after the SRB has remitted the convict’s unexpired substantive sentence.

Source reference: pp. 3–5

Whether the petitioner was entitled to release pursuant to the SRB’s remission order despite non-payment of the fine.

Source reference: pp. 5–6
03

Law Applied

Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, were invoked as the basis for the petition seeking release.

Source reference: p. 1

Section 473 of the BNSS was the provision under which the SRB’s remission order was made.

Source reference: p. 2

Rule 1176 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, provides that a prisoner undergoing only a fine-default sentence is not eligible for ordinary remission; it does not authorize continued detention for a fine-default sentence after the substantive sentence has been remitted.

Source reference: pp. 3–5

No judicial precedents were relied upon.

Source reference: no citation
04

Reasoning

The Court read Rule 1176 as applying only to prisoners in custody solely because of default in payment of a fine.

Source reference: p. 4

The petitioner had been serving a life sentence, with a fine and a default sentence, and the SRB had expressly remitted the unexpired term of his sentence.

Source reference: pp. 4–6

The Court held that the Rule could not be used to defeat that remission or to continue his detention for the default sentence; the respondents had therefore misapplied Rule 1176.

Source reference: pp. 4–5
05

Holding

The Court held that, once the petitioner’s unexpired sentence had been remitted, he could not be kept in custody merely because he had not paid the fine.

It directed his immediate release, disposed of the petition and pending application, and ordered that a copy of the decision be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for compliance.

Source reference: p. 6
06

Acts & Sections Cited

3 provisions across 2 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20232

Indian Penal Code, 18601

Delhi High Court

Original Court PDF

Mohd YunusvsState Nct Of Delhi And Anr & Anr.

Delhi High Court · October 01, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment