Why Delhi High Court ordered early release of Bangladeshi national serving life sentence for dacoity-murder

Background

• The petitioner was convicted in 2010 for offences under Sections 396 (dacoity with murder) and 449 (house trespass) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the IPC.
• His conviction was upheld by a division bench in 2014, though he was acquitted of certain additional charges under Section 412 (receiving stolen property) IPC and the Arms Act.
• In December 2021, he was repatriated to Bangladesh to serve the remainder of his sentence under the Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003.
• As per the commutation roll placed before the high court, the petitioner had undergone over 21 years of actual imprisonment and more than 27 years with remission as of January 2026. His conduct in custody was consistently recorded as satisfactory.
• The SRB had rejected his request for premature release, citing the “nature, gravity and perversity” of the crime and stating that the possibility of reoffending “cannot be ruled out.”
• Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached the high court.

Court’s observations

• Beyond describing the offence, the only factual input adverted to is a police report stating that the address at New Seemapuri was checked, and no such person or family was found residing there. The minutes then record that premature release is “opposed/not recommended” and conclude that release “might not be in the interest of the society at large”.
• The petition, therefore, raises a narrow, though important, question: whether the SRB, while exercising discretion under the governing framework, has undertaken the evaluative exercise mandated by the 2004 policy and the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, or whether the decision reflects a mechanical rejection driven primarily by the label of the offence and a conjectural assessment of future risk.
• The legal position admits of no dispute that no convict can demand remission or premature release as a matter of right.
• However, once the executive frames a policy and the prison rules prescribe a structured process, the convict acquires a right to a fair, meaningful, and non-arbitrary consideration under that framework.
• In matters of premature release, the relevant considerations, such as the circumstances of the offence, antecedents, conduct in custody, and the likelihood of reoffending, are not mere formalities to be mechanically recorded. They constitute the foundation of the evaluative exercise.
• The gravity of the offence, even when undeniable, cannot become the single note refrain that drowns out every other mandatory consideration.
• The SRB has recited the nature of the offence and then moved, in a single leap, to a conclusion on public interest. What is missing is the bridge.
• There is no discussion of the petitioner’s custodial record, no evaluation of rehabilitative indicators, no engagement with the prison recommendation contained in the commutation role, and no attempt to explain why the long and unbroken incarceration, coupled with satisfactory prison conduct, does not mitigate the perceived risk.
• The formulation that “propensity to commit similar crime again… cannot be ruled out” is, a bare assertion. It is unsupported by any antecedents, any adverse prison material, any adverse parole or furlough history (none exists), or any behavioural warning signs recorded by prison authorities.
• Any assessment of the likelihood of reoffending must be grounded in material, including antecedents and conduct during incarceration, and not in vague fears or unreasoned assertions.

Court’s directions

• 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.
• 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.