Asif @ Naeem vs State of NCT of Delhi - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 4798

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 473 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 432 - Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003 - Section 11 - Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 - Rule 1244 - Premature release policy dated 16th July, 2004.

(B) Premature release - Scope of judicial review - Sentence Review Board (SRB) must exercise discretion by weighing the circumstances of the crime with other relevant factors, including potential for reformation, possibility of rehabilitation, and socio-economic condition of the family - A decision based solely on the label of the offence and vague apprehensions about future risk, without evidence-linked assessment of antecedents and conduct during incarceration, is arbitrary and unsustainable.

(C) Recording of reasons - Essential component of fairness in administrative and quasi-judicial decision-making - A conclusion without intelligible rationale disables scrutiny and breeds arbitrariness - Mere assertion that propensity to commit crime cannot be ruled out, unsupported by any adverse material, is not a valid reason.

(D) Remand - Where the SRB, despite a prior remand, fails to discharge the obligation of reasoned consideration, a constitutional court may issue a writ of mandamus to secure compliance, rather than consigning the prisoner to an endless cycle of reconsiderations.

Facts of the case:
The Petitioner, a Bangladesh national convicted for murder during dacoity, sought premature release. He had undergone over 21 years of actual incarceration with satisfactory prison conduct. The Sentence Review Board rejected his request twice, relying on the gravity of the crime and a police report that his Delhi address could not be verified, concluding that the propensity to commit similar crime could not be ruled out.

Findings of Court:
The Court found that the SRB's decision was arbitrary, based on conjecture and the gravity of the offence alone, without engaging with the mandatory policy criteria. The Court set aside the rejection and directed the Government to process the Petitioner's premature release, holding that the material on record, including the commutation roll reflecting satisfactory conduct, justified release.

Issues: The main issues were whether the SRB undertook the mandated evaluative exercise under the 2004 policy and Delhi Prison Rules, and whether the decision reflected a mechanical rejection driven primarily by the label of the offence and a conjectural assessment of future risk.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that while no convict has a right to premature release, a convict acquires a right to a fair, meaningful, and non-arbitrary consideration under a policy and rules. The discretion must be exercised by weighing all relevant factors, including prison conduct and reformation potential. A decision based solely on the offence label and unsupported fears of recidivism is unsustainable. Where authorities fail to provide reasoned consideration despite judicial direction, a court may grant mandamus to secure compliance. Result : Petition allowed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Challenge to refusal of premature release by Sentence Review Board under Article 226. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )

2. Petitioner contends SRB decision is mechanical and ignores policy; State defends based on gravity and risk. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 28 )

3. Petition allowed; SRB decision set aside; petitioner declared fit for premature release; directions issued. (Para 32 , 33 )

4. What are the mandatory considerations for the Sentence Review Board when deciding premature release under the governing policy and rules?

The Board must consider family background, offence circumstances, prison conduct, parole history, health, and a reasoned recommendation; gravity alone is not sufficient. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 )

5. Can the Sentence Review Board refuse premature release based on a vague apprehension of future criminality without evidence?

No; any assessment of future risk must be grounded in antecedents, prison conduct, and behavioral indicators, not conjecture. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 )

6. Is the police report on an address in India determinative for a repatriated prisoner's premature release?

No; the relevant inquiry is the rehabilitative pathway and social anchorage in the receiving State, not an address check in the transferring State. (Para 25 , 26 )

7. What remedy does a constitutional court have when the SRB repeatedly fails to comply with policy despite a remand?

The court may issue a writ of mandamus directing premature release instead of ordering another remand, to prevent an endless cycle of reconsiderations. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 )

8. Does repatriation of a prisoner under the Repatriation of Prisoners Act affect the government's power to grant remission or premature release?

No; the Act expressly preserves the power of the transferring State to suspend, remit, or commute the sentence. (Para 11 , 31 )

SANJEEV NARULA, J.:

1. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, assails the decision of the Sentence Review Board (“SRB”) recorded in the minutes of its meeting dated 30th July, 2025, declining the Petitioner’s request for premature release. The Petitioner also challenges the consequential approval/communication issued on behalf of the Government of NCT of Delhi founded on those minutes.

2. The Petitioner is a Bangladesh national. He stands convicted in FIR No. 284/2004, at P.S. Mansarovar Park, Delhi. By judgment dated 25thJanuary, 2010, the Trial Court convicted him for offences including Sections 396/449 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), besides other charges.

3. In appeal, the Division Bench, by judgment dated 19th February, 2014, affirmed the conviction under Sections 396/449 read with Section 34 IPC, while acquitting the Petitioner of the charges under Section 412 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The challenge carried further did not succeed.

4. The Petitioner was repatriated to Bangladesh to serve the remainder of the sentence on 1st December, 2021. The record placed before this Court includes the commutation roll from the receiving State describing his conduct in custody as satisfactory and law-abiding. As per the commutation roll, the Petitioner had undergone 21 years, 5 months and 7 days of actual incarceration as on 18th January, 2026, and 27 years, 1 month and 12 days with remission.

5. Earlier, the SRB had declined the Petitioner’s request for premature release in 2024. The Petitioner approached this Court. By judgment dated 23rd May, 2025, the rejection was set-aside and the SRB was directed to reconsider the case strictly in accordance with the applicable Policy dated 16th July, 2004 and the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 , by passing a reasoned decision within the stipulated time. The minutes dated 30th July, 2025 represent the decision taken upon such reconsideration. The same read as follows:

“8.1 : The Case of Asif Naeem Sb Sh. Abdul Rub Munshi-(Age-41 Yrs.) (Bangladesh National)- Item No. 2

(i) Background: This case has been put up in compliance to the order dated 23.05.2025, passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in W. P. (Cr1.) No.1/2025 in the matter of Asif Alias Naeem Versus State ofNCT of Delhi and Anr.

(ii) Eligibility conditions: Imprisonment for 20 years including remissions but not less than 14 years of actual imprisonment. This case has been considered under the policy/order dated 16.07.2004 issued by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi i.e. policy that was existing on the date of conviction.

(iii) Sentence details: Asif @ Naeem Sb Sh. Abdul Rub Munshi is undergoing life imprisonment in case FIR No. 284/2004, U/S 396/449/412/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act, P.S. M. S. Park, Delhi for committing murder of a person during dacoity. As on 31.12.2023, the convict has undergone imprisonment of 19 years, 11 months & 24 days in actual and 24 years, 04 months & 18 days with remission. The said undergone period of imprisonment is taken from letter dated 02.01.2024 received from Bangladesh High Commission, New Delhi.

(iv) Deliberation: The Board considered the reports/records received and took into account all the facts and circumstances of the case. As per latest police report dated 18.06.2025, the address E-364, New Seemapuri was checked and no such person or family found residing at this address and the premature release is opposed/not recommended.

Considering all the facts, circumstances under which the offence was committed, nature, gravity and perversity of the crime, age of the convict, the Special Commissioner of Police (Crime), Delhi during the meeting concluded that the propensity to commit similar crime again by the convict cannot be ruled out. The Director, Social Welfare Department, Delhi has also not supported his premature release during the meeting.

(v) Recommendation: The Board is of the view that with the given back drop of the crime committed, it might not be in the i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 4798

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Narula, J
Asif @ Naeem – Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
W.P.(CRL) 1/2025

A Sentence Review Board's refusal of premature release must be based on an evidence-linked assessment of prison conduct and reformation potential, not solely on the gravity of the offence or vague apprehensions of future risk.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. What are the mandatory considerations for the Sentence Review Board when deciding premature release under the governing policy and rules?

5. Can the Sentence Review Board refuse premature release based on a vague apprehension of future criminality without evidence?

6. Is the police report on an address in India determinative for a repatriated prisoner's premature release?

7. What remedy does a constitutional court have when the SRB repeatedly fails to comply with policy despite a remand?

8. Does repatriation of a prisoner under the Repatriation of Prisoners Act affect the government's power to grant remission or premature release?

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 4798

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHISanjeev Narula, JAsif @ Naeem – AppellantVersusState of NCT of Delhi – RespondentW.P.(CRL) 1/2025

A Sentence Review Board's refusal of premature release must be based on an evidence-linked assessment of prison conduct and reformation potential, not solely on the gravity of the offence or vague apprehensions of future risk.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. What are the mandatory considerations for the Sentence Review Board when deciding premature release under the governing policy and rules?

5. Can the Sentence Review Board refuse premature release based on a vague apprehension of future criminality without evidence?

6. Is the police report on an address in India determinative for a repatriated prisoner's premature release?

7. What remedy does a constitutional court have when the SRB repeatedly fails to comply with policy despite a remand?

8. Does repatriation of a prisoner under the Repatriation of Prisoners Act affect the government's power to grant remission or premature release?

Cases Referred (2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Narula, J
Asif @ Naeem – Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
W.P.(CRL) 1/2025