After rejecting Bhullar’s early release plea six times, Sentence Review Board puts verdict on 7th on hold

The Tihar Jail superintendent filed the status report on January 25 in compliance with an order by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Bhullar has served nearly 25 years in jail and while availed parole for a cumulative period of 2 years and eight months.

The SRB is headed by Delhi Home Minister. The other members of the SRB include director general of Tihar Jail, secretaries of Home and Law departments, director of Social Welfare department of the Delhi government, a district judge, and a senior Delhi Police officer.

The Aam Aadmi Party is ruling both Delhi and Punjab with absolute majority, but has mostly maintained a non-committal stance on Bhullar’s release.

Bhullar, the main accused in the 1993 blast outside the Youth Congress headquarters in Delhi that killed nine people, was arrested after being deported by Germany. He was awarded death sentence in 2001, which was commuted to life imprisonment by the Supreme Court in 2014.

Bhullar has been in jail since 1995. In 2012, he was diagnosed with depression and shifted to a hospital in Delhi. Following a plea by his family, Bhullar was shifted to Amritsar in June 2015 where he has remained admitted to the psychiatry department of Government Medical College since then.

Beginning 2016, the Punjab government has granted him parole at different times.

“The case of the petitioner had been placed seven times before the Sentence Review Board, Government of NCT of Delhi for consideration of his premature release, but on each occasion, the same was rejected,” read the report filed by Tihar Jail superintendent.

The petition was rejected twice in 2018, once in 2019, and thrice in 2020, and deferred once in 2022.

“The case was again placed on 14.12.2022 for considering his premature release in view of the last decision/orders. The final outcome of the meeting held on 14.12.2022 is awaited as of today,” the report adds.

It stated that one of the primary reasons for the rejection was the nature of the crime, especially the involvement of Bhullar in anti-national or terrorist activities, the gravity of the crime, and also his involvement in other criminal cases.

The report argues that there was no specific rule for the premature release of the prisoner until it is granted by the respective government or court.

“There are several other judgments where it has been categorically observed that imprisonment for life means actual life imprisonment and it does not mean specific number of years,” it adds, while citing the Supreme Court verdict in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ratan Singh & Ors (1976). The top court had observed that a sentence of imprisonment for life does not automatically expire at the end of 20 years, including the remissions, because the administrative rules framed under the various jail manuals or under the Prisons Acts cannot supersede the statutory provisions of the Penal Code.

“A sentence of imprisonment for life means a sentence for the entire life of the prisoner unless the appropriate government chooses to exercise its discretion to remit either the whole or a part of the sentence under section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appropriate government has the undoubted discretion to remit or refuse to remit the sentence and where it refuses to remit the sentence no writ can be issued directing the state government to release the prisoner,” read the status report.

The report also referred to a Supreme Court case where a similar question arose. It said that the top court dismissed the petition in life convict Bengal, alias Khoka, alias Prasanta Sen Vs BK Srivastava & Others and held that the power of remission lies within the exclusive domain of the government under Section 432 of CrPC and neither section 57 nor any rules or local Acts can stultify the effect of the sentence of life imprisonment given by court under IPC.

“It is clear that neither Section 57 of the IPC nor explanation to Section 6L of the West Bengal Act lays down that a life imprisonment prisoner has to be released after completion of 20 years,” read the report.

It further stated that the 20 years mentioned in explanation to Section 61 of the West Bengal Act is only for the purpose of ordering remission. If the state government refused to grant remission of the whole period then the petitioner cannot take advantage of the above explanation and even Section 57 IPC and seek premature release.

“Further, the question of remission of the entire sentence or a part of it lies within the exclusive domain of the government under Section 401 of the CrPC, 1973 and neither Section 57 of the IPC nor any rules or local deis can stultify the effect of the sentence of life imprisonment given by the court under the IPC. To put it clearly, once a person is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, unless imprisonment for life is commuted by the competent authority, he has to undergo imprisonment for the whole of his life. It is equally well-settled that Section 57 of the IPC does not, in any way, limit the punishment of imprisonment for life to a term of 20 years,” the report read.

It added that the Delhi High Court also observed that a life sentence means the actual life imprisonment for the entire life of the convict. “The same may be curtailed by the State by premature release. However, that is the discretion of the state government to be exercised on the advice of the SRB. The SRB itself has to arrive at its opinion on the aspect of premature release on sound principles,” the report stated.

“The courts cannot substitute the discretion of the state SRB with its own discretion. If the court finds that the said discretion has not been properly exercised with due application of mind, the court may set aside the order rejecting the application seeking grant of premature release and may remit the case back for reconsideration. However, the court would not, on its own, undertake the exercise of considering whether or not to grant premature release to a convict,” report read.