Court Orders Immediate Release After Finding Continued Imprisonment Unnecessary
The Md Rashid Khan remission Delhi High Court ruling marks a significant decision on reformative justice. The Delhi High Court granted remission to Md. Rashid Khan, a convict in the 1993 Bowbazar blast case, and ordered his immediate release after more than 33 years in prison. The Court held that his exemplary conduct, long incarceration, and rehabilitation prospects justified remission.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna delivered the judgment on June 5, 2026, in W.P.(CRL) 1041/2021, Md. Rashid Khan v. Union of India & Anr. The Court reserved the matter on December 12, 2025. Advocates Varun Goswami and Dakshita Sharma represented the petitioner. CGSC Ripudaman Bhardwaj, along with Advocates Kushagra Kumar and Amit Kumar Rana, appeared for the Union of India, while Advocate Kunal Chatterji represented the State of West Bengal.
Background of the Case
Md. Rashid Khan has remained in custody since March 3, 1993. A trial court convicted him on August 31, 2001, in TADA Case No. 01/1993 arising from an FIR dated December 31, 1992. The conviction covered offences under Sections 120B, 436, and 302 of the IPC, Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, and Sections 3 and 4 of TADA.
The Supreme Court later upheld both the conviction and the sentence.
Khan challenged the State Sentence Review Board’s decisions dated May 29, 2017, and August 8, 2018, which rejected his request for premature release. He also sought directions for the Central Government to grant remission.
The petitioner pointed out that the SSRB had recommended his premature release in March 2015 after considering police reports, prison records, probation reports, age, health, conduct, rehabilitation prospects, and the likelihood of reoffending. However, interim orders in Union of India v. V. Sriharan delayed the implementation.
Petitioner Relied on Conduct and Long Incarceration
Khan argued that he had spent more than 33 years and seven months in prison. He also highlighted that co-convict Pannalal Jaysoara received premature release in 2014.
His prison record described his behaviour as “very very good.” Authorities never punished him during incarceration. He cooperated with prison officials and fellow inmates and returned on time after every parole, including a 93-day parole without police escort.
The petitioner relied on several Supreme Court decisions to argue that reformation and rehabilitation should guide remission decisions.
Union and West Bengal Opposed Release
The Union of India opposed the plea by stressing the seriousness of the offences and their impact on national security. It argued that the Ministry of Home Affairs rejected the remission request after receiving adverse inputs from West Bengal.
West Bengal described Khan as the mastermind behind the Bowbazar blast. The State distinguished his case from that of the co-convict, who secured release because of old age and poor health. It also questioned the Delhi High Court’s territorial jurisdiction.
Court Emphasises Reformative Justice
Justice Krishna reaffirmed that Indian criminal law prioritises reformative justice over retributive punishment. The Court cited several Supreme Court judgments and observed that imprisonment should help offenders reintegrate into society.
The Court also relied on Laxman Naskar v. Union of India, which lists factors such as the possibility of future crime, loss of criminal propensity, and the usefulness of continued confinement while considering premature release.
Addressing the gravity of the offence, the Court held that the remission framework does not create a separate exception for offences affecting national security.
The Court observed:
“If the gravity of the offence was an important criterion for considering the remission policy, then it would have been so stated as a ground in the scheme of remission… However, no such exception has been carved out.”
The Court also noted that although parity cannot be claimed as a right, the release of co-convict Pannalal Jaysoara remained a relevant factor while assessing the petition.
Court Finds No Risk of Future Offending
Justice Krishna found Khan’s conduct inside prison exemplary. The Court held that authorities had not produced material to support their apprehensions about his release.
The record showed that Khan returned punctually after every parole and never created law-and-order problems. No community member complained about threats or communal disharmony linked to him.
The Court also observed that nothing had changed since the SSRB recommended remission in 2015 except that Khan had grown older and spent additional years behind bars. Therefore, the later rejection lacked a sound basis.
The Md Rashid Khan remission Delhi High Court decision underscores that courts should give due weight to genuine reformation and long incarceration while deciding remission cases.
Final Directions
The Court concluded that granting remission would serve both individual and societal interests. It found no reason to send the matter back to the authorities for reconsideration.
Allowing the petition, the Court granted remission to Md. Rashid Khan and directed his immediate release if he was not required in any other criminal case.
The Court also disposed of the writ petition along with all pending applications.
