The Delhi High Court has ordered the premature release of a Bangladeshi national serving a life sentence in a dacoity-and-murder case. The Court held that the seriousness of the offence cannot, by itself, justify denying release once a convict meets the eligibility benchmark under the applicable premature release policy.
Justice Sanjeev Narula set aside the Sentence Review Board (SRB) decision that rejected the prisoner’s request, despite his long incarceration and a satisfactory conduct record.
Court’s Reasoning: Policy Requires A Balanced Assessment
The High Court said the SRB must conduct a structured, meaningful evaluation under the governing policy. While the nature of the crime remains relevant, the Board cannot reject an application on a single factor. The policy requires a balanced assessment that considers incarceration, conduct, and reform.
In doing so, the Court relied on the Supreme Court’s guidance in Satish @ Sabbe. It noted that the gravity of the original crime cannot be the sole basis for refusal. Further, any concern about future criminality must rest on material such as antecedents and prison conduct, not broad or unsubstantiated fears.
Convict’s Custody Period And Conduct Record
The petitioner completed over 21 years of actual imprisonment and more than 27 years including remission. In 2021, authorities repatriated him to Bangladesh to serve the remaining sentence. The commutation roll from the receiving jail described his conduct as satisfactory and law-abiding.
SRB’s Grounds Found Unsustainable
The SRB mainly cited the “heinous” nature of the offence. It also expressed a general apprehension that the petitioner might reoffend. However, the High Court found this reasoning inadequate. It held that the SRB failed to carry out the “calibrated assessment” required by the policy and rules.
Importantly, the Court said the apprehension was speculative. The SRB did not support it with an evidence-based evaluation of antecedents or prison behaviour.
“Right To Fair And Non-Arbitrary Consideration”
The Court further held that eligible convicts gain a right to fair, meaningful, and non-arbitrary consideration under the premature release framework. Therefore, an unsubstantiated fear of future risk—without linking it to relevant material—cannot defeat that right.
Directions
Accordingly, the High Court:
- set aside the SRB’s rejection decision,
- declared the petitioner fit for premature release, and
- directed the Delhi Government to process his release.
Appearance
- Mr. Sarthak Maggon, Advocate for the Petitioner
- Mr. Amit Tiwari, CGSC, with Ms. Ayushi Srivastava, Mr. Ayush Tanwar, Mr. Kushagra Malik, and Mr. Arpan Narwal, Advocates for the Union of India (UOI)
- Ms. Kamakshi Sehgal, Advocate for Union of India for Respondent
Case Title: Asif @ Naeem v. State
