Delhi High Court
Vikram Yadav vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 11 June, 2025
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 17.05.2025
Judgment pronounced on: 11.06.2025
+ W.P.(CRL) 3429/2024 & CRL.M.A. 1394/2025
VIKRAM YADAV .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Arundhati Katju, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Ali Chaudhary, Ms. Shristi
Borthakur and Mr. Abuzar Ali,
Advocates
versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC for State
with Mr. Sushant Bali, Ms. Avita
Bhandari, Mr. Arjit Sharma and Mr.
Nikunj Bindal, Advocates with
Inspector Shrichand and SI Anil, PS
Seemapuri
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
JUDGMENT
GIRISH KATHPALIA, J.:
Kautilya’s Arthshastra makes references to the element of reformatory policy
of sentencing that later came to be known as “remission”. Release of
convicted prisoners on sympathetic grounds before completion of the term of
imprisonment imposed on them was significant part of the ancient Hindu
jurisprudence. Kautilya advocated for periodic exercise of prematureW.P.(CRL) 3429/2024 Page 1 of 22 pages
GIRISH Digitally signed by
GIRISH KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
KATHPALIA Date: 2025.06.11 14:57:21
+05’30’
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:11.06.2025
15:59:09
release of prisoners, who were young or very old or ailing and those who
maintained good conduct in prison. The Vth pillar edict of Delhi Topra
makes reference to a statement of the emperor Asoka that he had let off
prisoners 25 times during a span of 26 years. The Ist separate edict at
Dhauli refers to an address by king Asoka to his judicial officers in the
capital, calling them upon to ensure that not a single innocent is subjected to
unnecessary pain or imprisonment. There existed a conscious and consistent
thought amongst ancient thinkers, aimed at reformation of criminals in
order to achieve larger goal of peace in society by minimization of crime
and criminogenic tendencies. Later, thinkers across globe nurtured the idea
that reformatory policies are more productive than deterrent and retributory
approach to crime and criminal. To paraphrase and quote the famous Irish
author and poet Oscar Wilde: “Every saint has a past and every sinner has
a future”. And thoughts of Fyodor Dostoevsky (Crime and Punishment):
“Guilt, conscience, and the possibility of moral rebirth reside in every
human being”. Every darkness carries a hope for light, and every light
holds a memory of darkness. The track connecting this duality of darkness
and light is the course track of reformative sentencing. Every wrong
deserves a consequence; but every consequence must have a limit, lest it
became wrong in itself. The present decision is rooted in this philosophy.
1. The petitioner, having suffered incarceration for more than 18 years
without remission and more than 21 years with remission, consequent upon
his conviction in cases FIR No.611/2001 and FIR No.261/2001 of PS
Badarpur and PS Seemapuri respectively for offences under Sections
302/120B/364A/384/186/353/307/419 IPC, for which he was awarded
imprisonment for life (and different terms, which were to run concurrently)
by the Trial Court and upheld by a Division Bench of this court, seeks
premature release. Upon service of notice, the respondent State enteredW.P.(CRL) 3429/2024 Page 2 of 22 pages
Signature Not Verified
GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH
KATHPALIADigitally Signed
KATHPALIA Date: 2025.06.11 14:57:43
+05’30’
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:11.06.2025
15:59:09
appearance through learned Additional Standing Counsel (ASC), who filed
multiple status reports at different stages of arguments before predecessor
benches. On behalf of petitioner also, written submissions and documents at
different stages were filed. With consent of both sides, I heard learned
Senior Counsel for petitioner and learned ASC for State in special hearing
organised for a few cases on a Saturday.
2. The petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus directing his premature
release from prison on the basis of policy framed by the Government of
NCT of Delhi in the year 2004, as he has already undergone prison sentence
for a period more than 18 years without remission and more than 21 years
with remission. Earlier, the Sentence Review Board (SRB) took up
petitioner’s case for premature release on multiple occasions and rejected the
same on 06.08.2020, 11.12.2020, 25.06.2021, 21.10.2021 and 30.06.2023.
Thereafter, the petitioner along with others challenged the decision dated
30.06.2023 of SRB through a writ petition bearing no. W.P.(CRL)
1268/2024 before this court, and this court held that case of the petitioner
has to be governed by the policy of 2004 so the respondent State was
directed to consider case of the petitioners of that writ petition (which
included the present petitioner) afresh qua their premature release. Feeling
aggrieved by the said order of this court, the petitioner filed Special Leave
Petition, bearing SLP (Criminal) No.6839/2024, which was disposed of as
withdrawn granting liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings
before this court. Hence, the present petition.
W.P.(CRL) 3429/2024 Page 3 of 22 pages
Signature Not Verified
GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH
KATHPALIA
KATHPALIA Date: 2025.06.11 14:58:07
+05'30'
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:11.06.2025
15:59:09
3. The petitioner specifically disclosed in the petition that during the
period of incarceration, vide order dated 21.09.2010 in W.P.(CRL) 919/2010,
he was granted one month parole from 27.10.2010 to 27.11.2010 by this
court, but instead of surrendering on 28.11.2010, he absconded and on
05.06.2015, he was re-arrested in connection with two new cases, though
later, on 12.10.2018 in those two new cases, he was acquitted. Thereafter,
successive applications of petitioner for premature release were rejected on
the dates mentioned above. In his petition, the petitioner has extracted the
Minutes of Meetings of SRB whereby his successive applications for
premature release were rejected, basically on the ground of gravity and
perversity of crime and jumping of parole followed by re-arrest in two new
criminal cases. However, thereafter, by way of successive orders of this
court in different writ petitions, the petitioner was released on furlough and
he duly surrendered after expiry of the release period. Lastly, the petitioner
surrendered on 01.10.2024 in compliance with order dated 01.10.2024 of the
Supreme Court passed in his SLP (Criminal) No.6839/2024. Since then, the
petitioner remains confined in jail.
4. In their multiple status reports filed at different stages before different
predecessor benches and ultimately before this bench, the respondent State
opposed premature release of the petitioner, extracting the Minutes of
Meetings of the SRB, whereby his requests for premature release were
rejected. Referring to the said status reports, the learned ASC justified the
rejection of premature release of petitioner largely on the ground of conduct
of the petitioner in jumping parole, whereafter he was re-arrested after fiveW.P.(CRL) 3429/2024 Page 4 of 22 pages
Signature Not Verified GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH
KATHPALIADigitally Signed KATHPALIA Date: 2025.06.11 14:58:26
+05’30’
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:11.06.2025
15:59:09
years in two new cases. In the latest status report, learned ASC also referred
extensively to the judicial precedents, which were cited again during
arguments, basically to contend limited scope of interference by the High
Court in such matters.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner took me through records,
contending that this is a fit case to exercise writ powers and direct premature
release of petitioner. Taking me through the minutes of different meetings of
the SRB (as extracted in the petition itself), learned Senior Counsel
contended that there was complete non-application of mind by the SRB
insofar as all those minutes of meetings are copy-paste repetitions, ignoring
the current developments. It was argued by learned Senior Counsel that one
single default of jumping parole in the year 2010 ought not to be considered
now after 15 years in order to deny liberty to the petitioner. Learned Senior
Counsel for petitioner also took me through a number of Commendation
Certificates issued by jail and other authorities to the petitioner and
contended that the same reflect gradual reformation of the petitioner across
past 10 years. It was also argued on behalf of petitioner that his case was not
considered according to the parameters laid down in the policy of 2004
despite judgment dated 25.04.2024 of a coordinate bench of this court in the
case of Bijender & Ors. vs State, W.P.(CRL) 1268/2024, whereby the earlier
decision of SRB dated 30.06.2023 on the basis of the previous Social
Investigation Report was set aside.
W.P.(CRL) 3429/2024 Page 5 of 22 pages
GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
KATHPALIA Date: 2025.06.11 14:58:47
+05'30'
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:11.06.2025
15:59:09
6. On the other hand, learned ASC supported the impugned decision of
the SRB and laid heavy emphasis on the nature of the offence for which the
petitioner is facing life imprisonment. As regards the Commendation
Certificates, learned ASC argued that the same only make the prisoner
eligible for consideration and cannot be a ground to grant premature release.
Further, learned ASC also referred to the Nominal Rolls of the petitioner,
pointing out that even while facing the life imprisonment, the petitioner got
involved in offences under Section 307 IPC and under the Arms Act when
he was on parole. Learned ASC also addressed on the limited scope of
interference by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in
order to analyze decision of SRB, which is a technical committee. Learned
ASC submitted that in case this court finds the impugned decisions of SRB
not sustainable, the matter may be remanded for reconsideration in the next
meeting of SRB.
7. In support of their respective arguments, both sides referred to certain
judicial precedents.
7.1 Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner in support of her arguments
referred to the judgments in the cases titled as Vijay Kumar Shukla vs State
NCT of Delhi and Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7805; Gurvinder Singh vs
State (Govt. of NCT) of Delhi and Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4721; Hari
Singh vs State of NCT of Delhi and Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7118;
Sushil Sharma vs State, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 13277; State of Haryana
and Ors. vs Jagdish, (2010) 4 SCC 216; Joseph vs State of Kerala andW.P.(CRL) 3429/2024 Page 6 of 22 pages
Signature Not Verified GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH
KATHPALIADigitally Signed KATHPALIA Date: 2025.06.11 14:59:10
+05’30’
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:11.06.2025
15:59:09
Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1211; Bijender and Ors. vs State of Govt. of
NCT of Delhi, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3296; and Laxman Naskar vs Union
of India, (2000) 2 SCC 595.
7.2 On the other hand, learned ASC for State in support of his arguments
referred to the judgments in the cases titled as Vijay Kumar Shukla vs State
NCT of Delhi and Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7805; Gurvinder Singh vs
State (Govt. of NCT) of Delhi and Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4721; Hari
Singh vs State of NCT of Delhi and Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7118;
Ram Chander vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anr., (2022) 12 SCC 52;
Laxman Naskar (Life Convict) vs State of W.B. and Anr., (2000) 7 SCC
626; Shashi Shekhar @ Neeraj vs State of the NCT of Delhi & Ors, 2016
SCC OnLine Del 6284; Union of India vs V. Sriharan alias Murugan &
Ors., (2016) 7 SCC 1; and Bilkis Yakub Rasool vs Union of India, 2024
SCC OnLine SC 25.
7.3 Thence, the judgments in the cases titled as Vijay Kumar Shukla
(supra); Gurvinder Singh (supra) and Hari Singh (supra) were referred to
by both sides.
7.4 In the case of Vijay Kumar Shukla (supra), referred to by both sides
this court held thus:
“29. Each time the SRB rejects the plea, in a pithily drafted,
cursorily articulated proforma paragraph, not only is each of
the rejections almost a copy-paste of an earlier rejection, but
it lacks any embellishment or modicum of assessment or
reasoning beyond the proforma factors on which SRB hasW.P.(CRL) 3429/2024 Page 7 of 22 pages
GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
KATHPALIA Date: 2025.06.11 14:59:37
+05’30’
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:11.06.2025
15:59:09
right to reject. What is, therefore, before this Court are a set
of previous rejections and the impugned rejection of 2023
parroting the same reasons.
30. The Court, therefore, faces two options: either to be
persuaded by these repeated rejections and conclude that
there must be a rationale underlying the SRB’s consistent
stance, or to evaluate whether the SRB has genuinely applied
logic, rationality, reasonableness, and proper application of
mind in accordance with the rules and guidelines it is bound to
follow. The second option is prompted by the petitioner’s 26-
year-long journey being incarcerated, as noted above, which
reveals an apparent and significant discrepancy between that
journey and the reasons cited by the SRB for its rejections.
There seems to be an apparent and obvious mismatch between
the elements of that journey and the reasons for the rejection
by the SRB.
31. The underlying theme, fulcrum and raison d’être of
premature release are fortunately well articulated in Rule
1244 Chapter XX, of DPR (which is extracted in paragraph 17
above). Premature release is achieving a balance in ensuring
‘reformation, rehabilitation, and integration into society of
an offender on one hand and protection of society on the
other’. For the purposes of this assessment, as stated by the
Rule, is the conduct behaviour and performance of prisoners
while in prison. The SRB is undoubtedly a recommendary
body as per Rule 1247 (as extracted in paragraph 17 above).
The body is constituted by Members of the Executive, District
Judiciary, Police and Prison Authorities. The SRB, in
achieving this recommendation, exercises ‘discretion’.
32. However, the exercise of this discretion is to be based on
relevant factors, which inter alia are whether the convict has
lost his propensity for committing crime considering his
overall conduct, possibility of reclaiming the convict as a
useful member of society; and socio-economic condition of the
convict’s family.
33. These aspects form part of a comprehensive note prepared
by the Superintendent of Prisons as per Rule 1256(ii)
(extracted in paragraph 17 above), recommendation by
Deputy Commissioner of Police. Superintendent of Police, as
per Rule 1256(iv); report of Chief Probation Officer as per
Rule 1256(v). On the basis of these three reports, the Inspector
General (Prisons) is to make his recommendation. All this is
finally funnelled to the SRB, which has to apply guidelines,
W.P.(CRL) 3429/2024 Page 8 of 22 pages
GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
KATHPALIA Date: 2025.06.11 14:59:58
+05’30’
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:11.06.2025
15:59:09
general or special, laid down by the Government or by the
Courts. A cautionary note has been ensconced in Rule 1257(c)
for the SRB to not decline premature release ‘merely on the
ground that the police have not recommended this release”, as
also not rejecting it merely because it has been rejected on one
or more occasions earlier. The decision of the SRB is
mandated to be through ‘speaking order in writing’.
37. Even if one were to ignore the brevity of articulation by
the SRB, as merely for administrative convenience, there’s
complete opacity in whether the cautionary elements of Rule
1257(c) which ought to stare in the face of SRB, previous
rejections, lack of police recommendation and welfare of the
prisoner were considered and used as reasons ultimately
leading to a negative recommendation.
xxxxx
43. In Sushil Sharma (supra), Division Bench of this Court
categorically held that SRB cannot state that they are not
bound by the rules and guidelines to which they themselves
owe their existence. Therefore, there is a necessity for due and
proper application of mind, legal justification and lawful
sanction.
44. The Supreme Court in Joseph (supra) highlighted
“typecasting convicts through guidelines which are too
flexible based crime committed in distant past resulting in a
danger of overlooking the reformative potential of each
individual convict”. In this regard, the Court noted that
insisting on continued punishment without considering the
transformation of a prisoner undermines rationality and
fairness. Persistence in penalizing someone who has
reformed and no longer aligns with their past actions
disregards the reality of personal change and violates Article
14 of the Constitution. A rigid adherence to guidelines that
ignore positive conduct and rehabilitation perpetuates
despair, denies the value of good behaviour, and reflects an
unyielding societal harshness, negating the very principle of
reformative justice…
45. As rightly pointed out, “propensity for crime” cannot be a
random subjective assessment but has to be based on
objective factors. The objective factors are quite well
ensconced in the eligibility conditions, of a convict being in a
semi-open prison and even more stringent requirements to
qualify for an open prison. If those factors are met in this
case, the committing to a semi-open/open prison is done, and
W.P.(CRL) 3429/2024 Page 9 of 22 pages
GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
KATHPALIA Date: 2025.06.11 15:00:22
+05’30’
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:11.06.2025
15:59:09
the ‘report card’ of the convict continues to be good, in the
opinion of the Court would be supremely critical factors that
ought to imbue any assessment for premature release.”
(emphasis supplied)
7.5 In the case of Gurvinder Singh (supra), relied upon by both sides, this
court held thus:
“9. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the SRB while
rejecting the premature release of the petitioner has only
considered- (i) the facts and circumstances under which the
crime was committed, (ii) the gravity, perversity and nature of
the crime, (iii) unsatisfactory jail conduct, and (iv) the fact
that the police opposed the premature release. However, it is
noted that the SRB has to consider other relevant factors as
enumerated in Para 3.1 of the policy dated 16.07.2004 and
Rule 1251 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 apart from
considering the circumstances in which the crime was
committed, as well as, the gravity, perversity and nature of
crime.
xxxx
11. Likewise, Rule 1251 of Delhi Prison Rules reads thus:
1251. Every convicted prisoner whether male or female
undergoing sentence of life imprisonment and covered
by the provisions of Section 433A Cr. P.C. shall be
eligible to be considered for premature release from the
prison immediately after serving out the sentence of 14
years of actual imprisonment i.e. without the remissions.
It is, however, clarified that completion of 14 years in
prison by itself would not entitle a convict to automatic
release from the prison and the Sentence Review Board
shall have the discretion to recommend to release a
convict, at an appropriate time in all cases considering
the circumstances in which the crime was committed and
other relevant factors like:–
a) Whether the convict has lost his potential for
committing crime considering his overall conduct
in Jail during the 14 year incarceration.
b) The possibility of reclaiming the convict as a
useful member of the society and
c) Socio-Economic condition of the Convict’s
W.P.(CRL) 3429/2024 Page 10 of 22 pages
GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
KATHPALIA Date: 2025.06.11 15:00:45
+05’30’
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:11.06.2025
15:59:09
family.
12. However, in the impugned order, there is no discussion on
the aspects viz., (i) whether the convict has lost his potential
for committing crime considering his overall conduct in jail
during the 14 year incarceration, (ii) the possibility of
reclaiming the convict as a useful member of the society, and
(iii) the socio-economic condition of the convict’s family. It is
settled law that if the administrative power has been exercised
without considering, or without application of mind to, the
relevant factors, the exercise of power will be regarded
manifestly erroneous. This being the position, the impugned
order cannot be sustained.”
7.6 Another judicial precedent relied upon by both sides was in the case
of Hari Singh (supra), wherein this court held thus:
“12. The factors for consideration while deciding the
application of a convict for premature release, as laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxman Naskar (supra) and
which have been reiterated in State of Haryana v. Jagdish,
(2010) 4 SCC 216, are:-
(i) whether the offence affects the society at large;
(ii) the probability of the crime being repeated;
(iii) the potential of the convict to commit crimes in
future;
(iv) if any fruitful purpose is being served by keeping the
convict in prison; and
(v) the socio-economic condition of the convict’s family.
15. It is well established that when the convict has undergone
substantial and long period of incarceration, the eventual
purpose of imprisonment, in all circumstances, including the
most serious offences, is reformative and not retributive. To
deny the benefit of remission to a convict, solely on the basis
of the nature of crime committed, and without appreciating
other parameters including but not limited to the convict’s
age, health and socio-economic condition and family
relations, his post-conviction conduct, jail conduct etc.,
would not serve the ends of justice. It is of ultimate
importance that the societal interest must be balanced with the
rights of the convict and resorting to mechanical and clerical
approach in dealing with the application of premature release
where the convicts have undergone long periods of
W.P.(CRL) 3429/2024 Page 11 of 22 pages
GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
KATHPALIA Date: 2025.06.11 15:01:09
+05’30’
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:11.06.2025
15:59:09
incarceration which will result in defeating the said purpose.”
(emphasis supplied)
7.7 In the case of Laxman Naskar (supra) the Supreme Court held thus:
“3. It is a settled position of law that life sentence is nothing
less than lifelong imprisonment and by earning remissions a
life convict does not acquire a right to be released
prematurely; but if the Government has framed any rule or
made a scheme for early release of such convicts then those
rules or schemes will have to be treated as guidelines for
exercising its power under Article 161 of the Constitution and
if according to the government policy/instructions in force at
the relevant time the life convict has already undergone the
sentence for the period mentioned in the policy/instructions,
then the only right which a life convict can be said to have
acquired is the right to have his case put up by the prison
authorities in time before the authorities concerned for
considering exercise of power under Article 161 of the
Constitution. When an authority is called upon to exercise its
powers under Article 161 of the Constitution that will have to
be done consistently with the legal position and the
government policy/instructions prevalent at that time.”
8. Falling back to the present case, there is no dispute that as elaborately
laid down by the coordinate bench of this court in the judgment of Bijender
(supra) guided by the judicial precedents as cited above, case of the present
petitioner for premature release has to be considered in accordance with the
policy of 2004. According to petitioner, the SRB did not adhere to the said
policy, while according to the respondent, the policy was strictly adhered to.
9. For the sake of convenience, the relevant portion of the policy of 2004
is extracted below:
“Eligibility for premature release:-
3.1 Every convicted prisoner whether male or female undergoing
W.P.(CRL) 3429/2024 Page 12 of 22 pages
Signature Not Verified
GIRISH Digitally signed by
GIRISH KATHPALIADigitally Signed KATHPALIA Date: 2025.06.11
15:01:35 +05’30’
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:11.06.2025
15:59:09
sentence of life imprisonment and covered by the provisions of Section
433A CrPC shall be eligible to be considered for premature release
from the prison immediately after serving out the sentence of 14 years
of actual imprisonment i.e. without the remissions. It is however,
clarified that completion of 14 years in prison by itself would not
entitle a convict to automatic release from the prison and the Sentence
Review Board shall have the discretion to release a convict, at an
appropriate time in all cases considering the circumstances in which
the crime was committed and other relevant factors like:-
a) Whether the convict has lost his potential for committing
crime considering his overall conduct in jail during the 14 years
incarceration;
b) The possibility of reclaiming the convict as a useful member
of the society; and
c) Socio-economic condition of the convict’s family.
Such convict as stand convicted of a capital offence are prescribed
the total period of imprisonment to be undergone including remission,
subject to a minimum of 14 years of actual imprisonment before the
convict prisoner is released. Total period of incarceration including
remission in such cases should ordinarily not exceed 20 years.
Certain categories of convicted prisoners undergoing life sentence
would be entitled to be considered for premature release only after
undergoing imprisonment for 20 years including remissions. The
period of incarceration inclusive of remissions even in such cases
should not exceed 25 years. Following categories are mentioned in
this connection.
a) Convicts who have been imprisoned for life for murder in
heinous crimes such as murder with rape, murder with dacoity,
murder involving an offence under the Protection of Civil Rights
Act 1955, murder for dowry, murder of a child below 14 years
of age, multiple murder, murder committed after conviction
while inside the jail, murder during parole, murder in a terrorist
incident, murder in smuggling operation, murder of a public
servant on duty.
b) Gangsters, contract killers, smugglers, drug traffickers,
racketeers awarded life imprisonment for committing murders
as also the perpetrators of murder committed with pre-
meditation and with exceptional violence or perversity.
c) Convicts whose death sentence has been commuted to life
imprisonment.
W.P.(CRL) 3429/2024 Page 13 of 22 pages
GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
KATHPALIA Date: 2025.06.11 15:02:00
+05'30'
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:11.06.2025
15:59:09
3.2 All other convicted male prisoners not covered by section 433A
CrPC undergoing the sentence of life imprisonment would be entitled
to be considered for premature release after they have served at least
14 years of imprisonment inclusive of remission but only after
completion of 10 years actual imprisonment i.e., without remissions.
3.3 The female prisoners not covered by section 433A CrPC
undergoing the sentence of life imprisonment would be entitled to be
considered for premature release after they have served at least 10
years of imprisonment inclusive of remissions but only after
completion of 7 years actual imprisonment i.e., without remissions.
3.4 Cases of premature release of persons undergoing life
imprisonment before completion of 14 years of actual imprisonment
on grounds of terminal illness or old age etc. can be dealt with under
the provisions of Art. 161 of the Constitution of India”
10. The relevant portion of the Minutes of Meeting dated 30.06.2023 of
SRB, which led to the present petition are extracted below:
“138. VIKRAM YADAV S/o SH. INDER SINGH — AGE-42 YRS.
Vikram Yadav S/o Sh. Inder Singh is undergoing life imprisonment in
case FIR No.611/2001 & 261/2001 U/S 302/120-B/364-
A/384/186/353/307/419 IPC, P.S. Badarpur & Seema Puri (clubbed
together) for murder of a person during abduction for ransom.
The convict has undergone:
Imprisonment of 16 years, 07 months and 03 days in actual and 19
years, 03 months and 15 days with remission. He has availed Parole
02 times. He Jumped parole w.e.f. 28.11.2010 and was re-arrested in
other 02 cases on 05.06.2015.
Conclusion:
Reports received from Police and Social Welfare Departments for
premature release of convict and after taking into account all the facts
and circumstances of the case i.e. murder of a person after abduction
for ransom, the gravity and perversity of the crime, jumping of parole
and re-arrest in two other criminal cases, shown non-reformative
attitude, strong objection by Police, possibility of committing crime
again etc., the Board unanimously REJECTS premature release of
convict Vikram Yadav S/o Inder Singh at this stage.”
W.P.(CRL) 3429/2024 Page 14 of 22 pages
GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified KATHPALIA Date: 2025.06.11 15:02:29
+05'30'
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:11.06.2025
15:59:09
11. Before proceeding further, it would be pertinent to note that the
operative minutes of meeting dated 30.06.2023 are virtually copy-paste of
the minutes of earlier meetings dated 06.08.2020, 11.12.2020, 25.06.2021,
and 21.10.2021. The composition of the SRB would make this court assume
that each matter is discussed threadbare in such meetings. But unfortunately,
the manner in which minutes of these meetings were worded, the allegation
of non-application of mind cannot be brushed aside. Every instrumentality of
the State, be it judicial or administrative, while deciding an issue must author
the decision in such manner that deciphers what worked in the mind of the
authority concerned. The court must have material before it to examine as to
whether there was proper application of mind or not. In the present case,
there is nothing on record to suggest proper application of mind by the SRB.
12. Another important aspect is that quite often, the SRB members
appointed in their official capacity do not personally attend the meeting and
rather send their representatives, owing to their other heavy official
engagements. The profile of members of the SRB is such that it is practically
not possible for all of them to gather and scrutinize so many cases dealing
with human attitudes and personality. The Chairman of the SRB being the
Minister and members of SRB being the Principal Secretary (Home) and
Secretary (Law, Justice and Legislative Affairs), they opting to send their
representatives owing to their overall heavy workload cannot be faulted
with. Same is the status qua the District & Sessions Judge.
W.P.(CRL) 3429/2024 Page 15 of 22 pages
GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
KATHPALIA Date: 2025.06.11 15:02:59
+05'30'
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:11.06.2025
15:59:09
13. The SRB deals with human beings, that too those who have been
deprived of liberty across a long span of time on account of their aggression
which led to criminality. The approach of the SRB ought to be reformation
oriented and not a routine disposal/statistics dominated exercise. The
composition of SRB needs to be re-examined by the authorities concerned so
as to make the exercise of sentence review meaningful and commensurate to
the laudable philosophy of reformation of criminal. It is suggested that the
composition of SRB must include the judicial officer concerned (or her/his
successor) who sentenced the prisoner under consideration; that judicial
officer would better contribute after examining the entire trial and sentencing
records. It is further suggested that composition of SRB must include an
eminent sociologist and a criminologist with missionary zeal and sensitivity
towards reformation of the prisoner under consideration. Another vital
component of SRB can be the concerned Jail Superintendent, who had the
best opportunity to watch the reformative growth or otherwise of the
prisoner concerned from close quarters. In order to ensure meaningful
exercise of sentence review, the composition of SRB should be based on
nexus between the jail performance of the prisoner and the job profile of the
member concerned, instead of just high official designation of the member.
14. As regards application of mind, keeping in view sensitivity of the
decision to allow or deny premature release to a prisoner, the application of
mind has to be such that reflects application of reasonable and logical
parameters. A comparative inventory of aggravating and mitigating factors
must be taken on record by SRB in order to arrive at its decision. TheW.P.(CRL) 3429/2024 Page 16 of 22 pages
Signature Not Verified GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH
KATHPALIADigitally Signed KATHPALIA Date: 2025.06.11 15:03:30
+05’30’
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:11.06.2025
15:59:09
decision, so arrived, must have a reasonable connect with the inventory,
aimed at achieving meaningful reformation. In this regard, SRB should also
make a graded response in the sense that depending upon the scale of
observed reformation of the prisoner, if the stage is considered a bit early for
premature release, the prisoner can be shifted initially to semi-open prison,
followed by open prison. That gradual movement would give a taste of
liberty to the prisoner, which would encourage him to push for his
reformation and that would be a meaningful punishment. Not just this, SRB
can also consider premature release of the convict/prisoner with necessary
directions in the nature of surveillance over specific period, directing the
prisoner/convict to report before the local police on a weekly basis for
specific period. The binary of grant or denial of premature release has to be
discarded.
15. To recapitulate in the present case, the premature release has been
declined to the petitioner on the grounds of gravity and perversity of the
crime (abduction for ransom and murder); jumping of parole and re-arrest in
two other criminal cases, showing non reformative attitude; strong objection
by police; and possibility of committing crime again. It would be apposite to
examine each of these grounds individually.
16. Of course, abduction for ransom, followed by murder is indeed
gruesome and needs to be dealt with sternly. But then, one also cannot
ignore that the said crime took place way back in the year 2001 and the
learned trial court, by way of detailed order on sentence found it not a caseW.P.(CRL) 3429/2024 Page 17 of 22 pages
GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
KATHPALIA Date: 2025.06.11 15:04:05
+05’30’
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:11.06.2025
15:59:09
which would call for imposing death penalty, so life imprisonment was
imposed. As mentioned above, the petitioner has already undergone the
sentence of incarceration for more than 18 years without remission and more
than 21 years with remission. Not that due to passage of time, the inherent
perversity of the crime per se diminishes in any manner. But for the
purposes of reformative sentencing, such long incarceration, as already
suffered by the petitioner, the perversity must be visualised as faded. The
wound suffered by the kith and kin of the deceased, which was fresh in the
year 2001, would have by now reduced to scab. Time heals all wounds. This
is the only way to fathom in order to ensure purposive application of the
reformatory tool of premature release, otherwise no convict would be ever
granted an opportunity to reform himself. For, life imprisonment, by its very
nature is awarded in gruesome offences where the appropriate punishment is
a bit short of awarding capital sentence. A punishment, to be scientific has to
have an end somewhere during lifetime of the convict.
17. Then comes jumping of parole by the petitioner and his re-arrest in
two more criminal cases. Even that occurred way back in the year 2015. As
mentioned above, citing this misconduct, the SRB has repeatedly denied
premature release to the petitioner. Some point of time has to be there, when
aftereffects of such misconduct must taper down. It has been more than a
decade since the petitioner jumped parole and got involved in those two
cases. After the year 2015, there is not even a whiff of any allegation of any
jail misconduct on the part of the petitioner. Rather, as observed hereafter,
subsequently the petitioner was awarded a number of commendations by theW.P.(CRL) 3429/2024 Page 18 of 22 pages
GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
KATHPALIA Date: 2025.06.11 15:04:37
+05’30’
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:11.06.2025
15:59:09
jail authorities. Most significantly, as discussed above, the petitioner stands
acquitted in those two cases.
18. As regards possibility of the petitioner committing crime again,
merely because he has not physically attained old age, it cannot be said that
there are higher chances of his committing crime again. Bodily strength has
no nexus with the propensity to commit crime. The propensity to commit
crime has to be analysed by examining reformative ascension of the prisoner
as reflected from cogent material. The petitioner has filed, with index dated
24.02.2025, six Commendation Certificates issued by the jail and other
authorities to him. Those certificates include Certificates of Appreciation for
his good work and performance on the occasions of Republic Day of the
years 2021 and 2022; Participation Certificate in the foundation course of
yoga science, conducted under the Ministry of Ayush, Government of India;
Certificate of Appreciation for hard work and efforts in assisting the jail
administration in fight against Covid pandemic; Certificate of learning
computer science; and Certificate issued by Gandhi Smriti & Darshan Smriti
for participation in painting competition. Speaking specifically about
conduct of the petitioner during Covid pandemic, according to the
Appreciation Certificate dated 10.02.2021 issued by the jail authorities, the
petitioner remained associated in cleaning and timely sanitization of jail,
ensuring availability and distribution of face masks, sanitizers, hands wash,
clean clothes and other daily utility items amongst other inmates; and
assisting the jail administration by way of regular counselling of newly
admitted prisoners during Covid pandemic. According to the saidW.P.(CRL) 3429/2024 Page 19 of 22 pages
GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
KATHPALIA Date: 2025.06.11 15:05:13
+05’30’
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:11.06.2025
15:59:09
Appreciation Certificate dated 10.02.2021, the petitioner had done an
extraordinary job in the jail in fight against Corona, due to which the jail
administration succeeded in keeping Corona free the jail no.2, even while
admitting and quarantining more than 8200 newly admitted prisoners. These
certificates, coupled with the fact that across a period of time, the petitioner
was released on parole and furlough more than once show a substantial
reformative growth of the petitioner, which is a vital indicator of reduced
propensity to commit crime again. For, it shows a realisation in the
petitioner that he can live life of appreciation by staying away from crime.
19. As regards the said Commendation Certificates, I am unable to agree
with the contention of learned ASC that the same only make the prisoner
eligible for consideration and cannot be a ground to grant premature release.
The policy of 2004, extracted above makes it clear that irrespective of such
certificates, every convicted prisoner undergoing life sentence has to be
considered for premature release after serving sentence of 14 years without
remissions. So far as eligibility or entitlement to be considered for premature
release is concerned, the only criteria is that the convicted prisoner must be
the one facing a life imprisonment sentence, who has served 14 years of
actual imprisonment. The Commendation Certificates, as noted above are
guiding tools for SRB in exercise of discretion to grant premature release.
20. As regards the ‘strong objection’ by police to allow the petitioner
premature release, no reasonable grounds of objection have been spelt out.
However, in this regard, the police also has to shift their paradigm fromW.P.(CRL) 3429/2024 Page 20 of 22 pages
Signature Not Verified
GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH
KATHPALIADigitally Signed
KATHPALIA Date: 2025.06.11 15:05:51
+05’30’
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:11.06.2025
15:59:09
oppressive punitive approach to reformatory approach. Not everything
propounded for an accused or a convict has to be opposed by police as a
matter of routine.
21. In the overall circumstances of this case, I have no doubt that the
petitioner stands substantially reformed and can become a useful member of
the society. Keeping the petitioner in jail for further period would not yield
any fruitful result towards his reformation or to the society at large.
22. I have also deliberated upon the submission of learned ASC that in
case the impugned decision (or indecision) of SRB is found not sustainable,
the matter be remanded for fresh consideration in a time bound manner in
the light of parameters to be laid down by this court. As mentioned above,
the impugned decision of denial of premature release to the petitioner suffers
from vices of non-application of mind and completely mechanical approach
to such a sensitive issue. But for the time being, instead of straightaway
directing premature release of the petitioner, it is considered appropriate that
the SRB be given a chance to re-examine the entire issue in the light of
above discussion.
23. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is allowed and the respondent is
directed to consider afresh case of the petitioner for premature release in
cases FIR No.611/2001 of PS Badarpur and FIR No.261/2001 of PS
Seemapuri for offences under Section 302/120B/364A/384/186/353/307/419
IPC in accordance with the policy of the year 2004 and the parameters laidW.P.(CRL) 3429/2024 Page 21 of 22 pages
GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified KATHPALIA Date: 2025.06.11 15:06:44
+05’30’
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:11.06.2025
15:59:09
down and discussed above; the fresh consideration of case of the petitioner
shall be concluded within four weeks and the decision shall be
communicated to the petitioner within one week thereafter. It is specifically
directed that in case the SRB does not find it to be a fit case to grant
premature release to the petitioner, the decision of SRB shall be worded in a
manner that one can decipher as to what worked in the mind of SRB. Lastly,
it is also expected that the competent authority shall deliberate upon the
composition of SRB and reconstitute the same, and shall also further
finetune the policy of 2004 on the lines discussed above.
Digitally signed by
GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA
KATHPALIA Date: 2025.06.11
15:07:24 +05'30'
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
JUNE 11, 2025/ry/as
W.P.(CRL) 3429/2024 Page 22 of 22 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:11.06.2025
15:59:09
[ad_1]
Source link