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. 2His conviction and sentence were upheld by the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court dismissed his special leave petition.
Source reference: p. 2The 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. 2–3The 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. 3Issues
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. 3–5Whether the petitioner was entitled to release pursuant to the SRB’s remission order despite non-payment of the fine.
Source reference: pp. 5–6Law 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. 1Section 473 of the BNSS was the provision under which the SRB’s remission order was made.
Source reference: p. 2Rule 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. 3–5No judicial precedents were relied upon.
Source reference: no citationReasoning
The Court read Rule 1176 as applying only to prisoners in custody solely because of default in payment of a fine.
Source reference: p. 4The 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. 4–6The 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. 4–5Holding
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. 6Acts & 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
Original Court PDF
Mohd YunusvsState Nct Of Delhi And Anr & Anr.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
