IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to consider the reformative aspect of punishment, the potential for rehabilitation, and the reformation of convicts. The judgment emphasizes the importance of not overlooking the reformation potential of individual convicts and the need to avoid a paranoid approach based solely on the nature of the crime committed in the distant past.

JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The conflict between the human rights of the individual and the interest of the public at large has rarely been tested more than in the cases of premature release of convicts, particularly those convicted of heinous crimes, in the present case, creating communal tension by engaging in terrorist activities. Conflicting philosophies of penology have been pitted against each other, epitomized in some of the decisions of the Supreme Court.

2. The present challenge is against a refusal of the prayer of premature release made by the petitioner, a convict in the infamous “Bowbazar Bomb Blast Case”, which rocked Calcutta (now Kolkata) when it happened. The petitioner has already spent more than 31 years behind the bars. Previously, several writ petitions have been filed by the writ petitioner upon non-consideration/refusal of such request by the respondent-authorities, culminating in the present writ petition. By the impugned decision, the State Sentence Review Board (SSRB), West Bengal has decided to turn down the said request primarily on the premise that the convict was a very close associate of the notorious “Satta Don”, namely Rashid Khan, who was the mastermind of the bomb blast. The thrust of the refusal is clearly the magnitude of the offence.

3. The petitioner argues that, having spend more than three decades behind the bars, the petitioner ought to be granted premature release on a proper application of the relevant yardsticks as reflected particularly in the views of the Supreme Court (Two-Judge Bench) expressed in Joseph Vs. State of Kerala and others, reported at 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1211. The said judgment lays particular emphasis on the reformative aspect of punishment as opposed to the retributive approach.

4. It is argued that the good conduct of the petitioner during incarceration, chances of rehabilitation and the acceptability of the petitioner to his family are to be looked into instead of laying over-emphasis on the nature of the crime, committed several years back. Apart from Joseph”s Case, learned counsel for the petitioner cities Prithwis Chawdhury v. Union of India, Ministry of Home Secretary and others, reported at (2017) 12 SCC 718 where, although no ratio was laid down as such, a convict who was over 19 years in a correctional home was granted release under Section 61(2) of the West Bengal Correctional Services Act, 1992.

5. The petitioner also places reliance on a judgment of this Court dated August 28, 2023 in WPA 9073 of 2023 [Md. Khalid Vs. Chief Secretary, State of West Bengal & Ors.] passed in a previous round of litigation in connection with the present petitioner, which highlighted the conduct of the petitioner and the usual paranoia which visits police reports regarding early remission. Learned counsel argues that none of the said factors were considered by the respondent-authorities.

6. On the other hand, the respondents rely on Ram Chander v. State of Chhattisgarh and another, also a Two-Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court reported at (2022) 12 SCC 52. It is argued that in the said judgment, the primacy of the decision of the State and the SSRB has been established. Such discretion, having been exercised within the purview of law, cannot be faulted. Hence, the respondent-authorities stand by their decision to refuse premature release to the petitioner.

7. A consideration of the grounds of refusal as reflected in the impugned decision itself is necessary for the present adjudication.

8. The SSRB observed that strong objection has been raised by the Kolkata Police Authorities explaining severity of the crime and its effect in the locality as well as past antecedents of the convict. It was further informed that the convict was a very close associate of the notorious “Satta Don” Rashid Khan of those days. The convict, it is stated, had engaged himself in all sorts of criminal activities as per instruction of Rashid Khan in order to “establish himself in the terr