IMPORTANT POINT
The Sentence Review Board's decision to reject a convict's plea for premature release is valid under the 2004 Guidelines, which provide for consideration but not guaranteed release.

ORDER :

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

“a) Allow the present petition in favour of the Petitioner in FIR No. 40/1992, PS Mukherjee Nagar by passing appropriate orders/directions as well as issuance of writs in the nature of mandamus or certiorari or any other applicable writ and/or directions or order to the Respondents thereby allowing premature release of the Petitioner in accordance with the applicable short sentencing policy of the Respondent i.e. 2004 Guidelines on account of delay in consideration by the Competent Authority;

b) Pass any other writ, order or direction that this Hon’ble Court may consider fit and proper in the interest and furtherance of justice.”

2. The brief facts of the case are that an FIR bearing no. 40/1992 was registered under Sections 302/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter as ‘IPC’) read with Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 against the petitioner at Police Station - Mukherjee Nagar, New Delhi.

3. In the year 2000, the petitioner was convicted under the said offences by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi vide order dated 21st March, 2000 and was directed to undergo life imprisonment.

4. Subsequently, the said conviction was upheld by the Co-ordinate bench of this Court in the year 2016 vide order dated 8th February, 2016.

5. In the year 2023, the petitioner was released on furlough vide order dated 29th September, 2024. In W.P. (Crl) bearing no. 477/2023, the petitioner was arrayed as a party and was granted protection from surrendering by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 9th October, 2023.

6. Thereafter, the jail authorities issued communication dated 18th October, 2023 acknowledging the list of convicts eligible for grant of premature release. However, it is stated that the case of the petitioner is yet to be considered by the Sentence Review Board (‘SRB’ hereinafter).

7. Aggrieved by the same, the instant petition has been filed by the petitioner.

8. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has maintained good conduct throughout his period of incarceration and he has been in judicial custody for 14 years, 2 months, 28 days.

9. It is submitted that despite being eligible for premature release, the SRB did not take his case for consideration, therefore, violating the fundamental rights provided to him under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

10. It is submitted that the respondent-State has failed to abide by the SRB Guidelines, 2004 (‘2004 policy’ hereinafter) and the non-conformation to the same is a ground for this Court to intervene and grant relief to the petitioner.

11. It is submitted that the serious lapse on part of the authorities is not only in contravention to their own policy, but also to numerous judgments given by this Court, whereby, it was held that non-conducting of the SRB is an infringement of the fundamental right of an inmate.

12. It is submitted that the similarly placed convicts have already been released while petitioner’s case is not yet considered, therefore, the said non-action on part of the respondent-State has led to undue hardships to the petitioner.

13. It is also submitted that the petitioner has the additional responsibility of looking after his brother’s family after his death in the year 2021, and therefore, his release is necessitated by several factors.

14. Therefore, in view of the foregoing submissions, the learned senior counsel prayed that the present petition be allowed.

15. Per Contra, the learned ASC appearing for the state vehemently opposed the instant petition submitting to the effect that the present petition is nothing but a gross abuse of the process of law.

16. It is submitted that the SRB has already considered the case of the petitioner in the meeting held on 23rd February, 2024 and rejected his plea for prematur