Gravity Of Offence Alone Not Sufficient To Deny Same Relief: Delhi High Court Grants Remission To 77-Year-Old TADA Convict In Custody Since 1993
The Bench said that the Sentence Review Board got caught in the legal rigmarole of the jurisdiction being of State or Centre, leading to a "change of heart" and subsequent denial of Remission, which it had granted in 2015.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that where a co-convict has already been released for the same offence and the convict seeking remission demonstrates established individual reformation, through impeccable prison conduct, successful parole record and advanced age with ailments, the gravity of the offence alone cannot justify denial of premature release. The Court further held that a Sentence Review Board cannot reverse its own recommendation for premature release without any change in circumstances.
Directing the immediate release of a 77-year-old TADA convict lodged since 1993 for his role in the Bowbazar Bomb Blast in Kolkata, the Court held that continued confinement of a demonstrably reformed convict after 33 years serves no fruitful purpose and that the reformative approach must prevail over retribution. The Court also held that once circumstances justify remission, there is no point in referring the matter back to the Government.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed, “…Though in the matter of remission, no parity can be claimed for remission as individual conduct has to be seen, but this fact is significant, in the context of the gravity of offence. If for the same offence, co-convict could be granted remission, gravity of offence cannot be a ground to deny the benefit to the Petitioner, if ha satisfies all the criteria”.
“…Though the State Remission board had recommended remission of the Petitioner in its Meeting on 25.03.2015, it got caught in the legal rigmarole of the jurisdiction being of State or Centre, leading to a change of heart and subsequent denial of Remission. There were no change of circumstances, rather it was progressing age; despite which the remission was thereafter, denied without any basis… Once it is held that the circumstances justify his remission, there is no point in referring the matter back to the Government to grant the remission.”, the Bench further observed.
Advocate Varun Goswami appeared for the petitioner and Ripudaman Bhardwaj, CGSC appeared for the respondent.
The petitioner was arrested on March 3, 1993 and was convicted on August 31, 2001 by the Designated Court TADA, Calcutta under Sections 120B and 302 IPC, Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and Sections 3 and 4 of TADA, and sentenced to life imprisonment.
His criminal appeal before the Supreme Court was dismissed and conviction upheld. His co-convict Pannalal Jaysoara was granted premature release in March 2014.
In its 56th Meeting held on March 25, 2015, the State Sentence Review Board recommended premature release of the petitioner after considering police, correctional home and probation officer reports, tenure of imprisonment, age, conduct and chances of rehabilitation.
However, the release order was not processed due to the Supreme Court's interim restraint order in Union of India v. V. Sriharan, (2016) 7 SCC 1 regarding remission of TADA convicts. The SSRB subsequently reversed its own recommendation in its 59th Meeting on May 29, 2017 and again in a Special Meeting on August 8, 2018, citing gravity of offence, police objections and social impact. The Union of India also declined to recommend remission. The petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging both rejection orders.
The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court in 2016 seeking premature release, which was dismissed on January 11, 2017 with liberty to approach the appropriate High Court. A subsequent writ petition before the Delhi High Court in 2018 was disposed of with liberty to file a fresh petition. The present petition was filed in 2021 and heard on December 12, 2025 with judgment pronounced on June 5, 2026.
The Court applied the five-factor test for remission laid down by the Supreme Court in Laxman Naskar v. Union of India (2000) 2 SCC 595 individual versus societal offence, chance of future recurrence, loss of potentiality to commit crime, fruitful purpose of continued confinement, and socio-economic condition of family.
On the gravity of offence, the Court held that remission policy does not carve out an exception for offences affecting national security. If gravity were a bar, the scheme itself would have said so. Where a co-convict was released for the identical offence, gravity cannot be a standalone ground to deny the petitioner if he satisfies all individual criteria.
On the SSRB's reversal, the Court found that there was no change in factual circumstances between the March 2015 recommendation and the May 2017 and August 2018 rejections, only the petitioner's age had progressed further. A reversal without any new adverse material was held to be without basis.
On individual reformation, the Character Certificate dated February 12, 2020 issued by the Superintendent, Presidency Correctional Home described the petitioner's behaviour as "very very good" across over 26 years of custody. He had been released on parole multiple times including 93 days without police escort and had returned within time on every occasion.
No complaint of threat, enmity or communal sentiment had been made against him. At 77 years of age, he suffered from chronic metabolic disease, diabetes, hypertension, benign prostatic hypertrophy and left eye cataract.
“From the aforesaid, it may be derived that there is very low likelihood of the recurrence of offence by the Petitioner”, the Bench observed.
On the question of whether the matter should be remanded to the Government, the Court held that once the circumstances justify remission, there is no point in referring the matter back.
Cause Title: Md. Rashid Khan v. Union Of India & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:5100)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Varun Goswami & Ms. Dakshita Sharma, Advocates
Respondent: Ripudaman Bhardwaj, CGSC, Kushagra Kumar and Amit Kumar Rana, Kunal Chatterji, Advocates.