Gravity Of Offence Alone Cannot Sustain Denial Of Premature Release Once Policy Threshold Is Crossed: Delhi High Court Orders Release Of Bangladeshi Life Convict
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula directed the premature release of a Bangladeshi national serving a life sentence for murder committed during dacoity, finding that the Sentence Review Board's repeated refusal to grant early release was arbitrary and contrary to the applicable policy. The court found that the Board had based its rejection solely on the gravity of the offence and speculative recidivism concerns, without meaningfully engaging with the convict's prolonged incarceration of over 21 years and his consistently satisfactory conduct throughout his custody.
The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenged the decision of the Sentence Review Board (SRB) dated 30th July, 2025, rejecting the petitioner’s request for premature release. The petitioner, a Bangladesh national, was convicted in 2010 for offences under Sections 396/449 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and other charges. His conviction was affirmed in appeal in 2014, with acquittal under certain other provisions.
He was repatriated to Bangladesh on 1st December, 2021, to serve the remainder of his sentence. The commutation roll placed before the Court recorded that as on 18th January, 2026, he had undergone 21 years, 5 months and 7 days of actual incarceration and 27 years, 1 month and 12 days including remission, with his conduct described as satisfactory.
The SRB, upon reconsideration pursuant to an earlier High Court order, declined premature release citing gravity of offence, adverse police input regarding verification of a Delhi address, and apprehension of possible future criminality.
The Court observed that “the applicable framework is not a matter of discretion in the abstract” and that once a policy structures the field, “the decision must be taken within that framework and for reasons that the policy recognizes.”
It recorded that under the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, premature release is anchored in “reformation and rehabilitation with societal protection,” and that conduct during incarceration bears directly on rehabilitative potential. Referring to the 2004 policy, the Court stated that eligibility triggers consideration but does not guarantee release, while also noting that the policy does not permit the SRB “to treat the label of the offence as a veto that makes the rest of the inquiry redundant.”
On the impugned decision, the Court stated: “Tested on the above touchstones, the impugned minutes do not withstand scrutiny.” It noted that there was “no discussion of the Petitioner’s custodial record, no evaluation of rehabilitative indicators, no engagement with the prison recommendation contained in the commutation role.”
Regarding the finding on future risk, the Court recorded that the formulation that “propensity to commit similar crime again… cannot be ruled out” was “a bare assertion” unsupported by antecedents or adverse prison material, and that “A conclusion stated as a possibility is not a reason.”
On the police input, it observed that the address verification failure was “not an assessment of risk” but at most a verification issue concerning an address in India. The Court further stated that the gravity of the offence, however serious, “cannot become the sole ground to refuse premature release once the policy threshold is crossed.”
Ultimately, the Court recorded that the petitioner satisfied the eligibility threshold and that there was “no adverse material of conduct or antecedents which would justify continued incarceration on the ground of future risk,” and that the SRB’s refusal was “unsustainable as an arbitrary exercise of discretion, resting on conjecture and the gravity of the offence alone.”
The Court directed that “The minutes of the SRB meeting dated 30th July, 2025, insofar as they reject the Petitioner’s request for premature release, are set aside, along with any consequential approval/communication founded thereon.”
“The Petitioner is considered fit for premature release under the applicable framework, on the basis of the material on record, including the commutation roll reflecting satisfactory prison conduct.”
“The Government of NCT of Delhi shall, within two weeks, process the case for issuance of the consequential orders and shall, through the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of External Affairs, communicate the decision to the concerned authorities in Bangladesh for implementation in accordance with the bilateral arrangement. The concerned jail authority in Bangladesh shall be informed forthwith through official channels, and compliance shall be ensured without avoidable delay.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sarthak Maggon, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Amit Tiwari, CGSC with Ms. Ayushi Srivastava, Mr. Ayush Tanwar, Mr. Kushagra Malik & Mr. Arpan Narwal, Advocates for UOI; Ms. Kamakshi Sehgal, Advocate for Union of India
Case Title: Asif @ Naeem v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Neutral Citation: 2026: DHC:1399
Case Number: W.P.(CRL) 4309/2025
Bench: Justice Sanjeev Narula
