Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia directed the Sentence Review Board (SRB) of the Government of NCT of Delhi to re-evaluate the plea of a life convict for premature release, citing that the Board's earlier decision suffered from "non-application of mind and completely mechanical approach". The court instructed that the convict's case be reconsidered strictly in accordance with the 2004 remission policy within a period of four weeks. The judgment also suggested a reconstitution of the SRB and a refinement of the 2004 policy to better align with reformative principles. The court refrained from issuing a direct order for release, instead granting the SRB a final opportunity to apply judicially recognized standards and reasoning. The Bench explicitly stated that denial of premature release should not be a default stance and must reflect a reasoned, case-specific application of the law and policy in question.

The petitioner, currently serving a life sentence following convictions in FIR No. 611/2001 from PS Badarpur and FIR No. 261/2001 from PS Seemapuri for offences under Sections 302, 120B, 364A, 384, 186, 353, 307, and 419 of the Indian Penal Code, filed a writ petition seeking premature release. The petitioner has completed over 18 years of incarceration without remission and more than 21 years with remission.

Also Read: Supreme Court Restores FIR Over Alleged Gold Loan Fraud | Says Patna HC Erred In Treating Complaint As Malicious Without Trial Evidence

The petitioner previously approached the SRB, which rejected his plea for premature release on five occasions: 06.08.2020, 11.12.2020, 25.06.2021, 21.10.2021, and 30.06.2023. The rejections were consistently based on the gravity of the crime, the petitioner’s past misconduct in jumping parole, and the potential for recidivism.

Earlier, a coordinate bench of the same court had directed the State to reconsider the petitioner’s case in accordance with the remission policy of 2004. Dissatisfied with the review, the petitioner had approached the Supreme Court through SLP (Criminal) No. 6839/2024. That petition was withdrawn, with liberty granted to file appropriate proceedings in the High Court, which led to the current petition.

The petitioner conceded that he had jumped parole granted on 27.10.2010 and remained absconding until his re-arrest on 05.06.2015 in two new criminal cases. However, he was acquitted in both cases on 12.10.2018. After this period, he was granted parole and furlough on multiple occasions and surrendered timely.

The petitioner relied on commendation certificates awarded during incarceration, asserting his gradual reform. These included Certificates of Appreciation for work during Republic Day celebrations, participation in yoga and computer science courses, and significant contributions during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in Jail No. 2, where he helped with sanitization and counselling of inmates.

The petitioner argued that the SRB failed to apply its mind in light of these developments, noting that the minutes of each SRB meeting appeared identical, reflecting a routine and non-individualized assessment. The petitioner cited previous judgments, including Bijender & Ors. vs State and Vijay Kumar Shukla vs State NCT of Delhi, where the court held that mechanical denials based on proforma reasons without adequate reasoning were unsustainable.

The respondent, represented by the Additional Standing Counsel (ASC), opposed the petition, reiterating that the nature and severity of the crime warranted continued imprisonment. The ASC further contended that commendation certificates were eligibility enhancers but not decisive grounds for release. The State referred to the petitioner’s earlier misconduct and invoked precedents stating the limited judicial scope in interfering with SRB decisions.

"Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." Quoting Oscar Wilde, the court laid the philosophical foundation of its judgment by underscoring the importance of reformative sentencing.

"The present decision is rooted in this philosophy." The court noted that the petitioner’s case for premature release, following more than 21 years of incarceration with remission, must be considered in line with the Delhi Government’s 2004 policy.

The Bench observed, "What is, therefore, before this Court are a set of previous rejections and the impugned rejection of 2023 parroting the same reasons." Citing the lack of individual assessment, the court found that SRB minutes had been mechanically reproduced without incorporating new developments in the petitioner’s conduct.

"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 judgment recorded that no evidence of proper application of mind was present in SRB’s decisions.

"Quite often, the SRB members...do not personally attend the meeting and rather send their representatives...cannot be faulted with...however...SRB deals with human beings...The approach...ought to be reformation-oriented and not a routine disposal/statistic dominated exercise." The court suggested reconstitution of the SRB to include persons directly connected with the case and those trained in sociology and criminology.

Discussing the grounds for rejection, the Bench stated, "Of course, abduction for ransom, followed by murder is indeed gruesome...But...the said crime took place way back in the year 2001...the perversity must be visualised as faded."

Regarding parole-jumping, the court recorded, "It has been more than a decade...Some point of time has to be there, when aftereffects of such misconduct must taper down."

On commendation certificates, the Bench noted, "The petitioner had done an extraordinary job in the jail in fight against Corona...These certificates...show a substantial reformative growth of the petitioner."

Responding to police objections, the court stated, "No reasonable grounds of objection have been spelt out...the police also has to shift their paradigm from oppressive punitive approach to reformatory approach."

Finally, the court held, "Keeping the petitioner in jail for further period would not yield any fruitful result towards his reformation or to the society at large."

The court directed, "The petition is allowed and the respondent is directed to consider afresh case of the petitioner for premature release...in accordance with the policy of the year 2004 and the parameters laid down and discussed above."

Also Read: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds 10-Year Sentence In 250 Kg Ganja Case | No Reason To Falsely Implicate Accused In Massive Drug Haul Hidden In Secret Truck Chamber

"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."

The Bench mandated 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."

It further directed, "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."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Ms. Arundhati Katju, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ali Chaudhary, Ms. Shristi Borthakur, and Mr. Abuzar Ali, Advocates

For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, Additional Standing Counsel 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

Case Title: Vikram Yadav vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:4946

Case Number: W.P.(CRL) 3429/2024

Bench: Justice Girish Kathpalia

[Read/Download order]