1. Premature release — TADA life convicts — Serial train Bomb Blast convictions — Petition. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 15460
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
Sudesh Bansal, Bhuwan Goyal, JJ
Asfaq Khan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 666/2023 | D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 159/2023 | D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 818/2023 | D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 790/2024
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Deeksha Dwivedi, Mr. Tek Chand Swami
For the Respondents: Mr. Bharat Vyas, Mr. Devesh Yadav, Mr. Rajesh Choudhary
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Deeksha Dwivedi, Mr. Tek Chand Swami
For the Respondents: Mr. Bharat Vyas, Mr. Devesh Yadav, Mr. Rajesh Choudhary
Prisoners convicted under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 are specifically barred from being considered for premature release under Rule 9(5) of the Rajasthan Prisoners (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 2006 and Rule 9(v) of the 1958 Rules.
Headnote:(A) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Rajasthan Prisoners (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 2006 - Rule 9(5) - Rajasthan Prisoners (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 1958 - Rule 9(v) - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Premature release of convicts - Embargo on TADA convicts - Application of judicial review.
(B) Premature release under prison rules - Convicts under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA) are specifically excluded from consideration for premature release by the Advisory Board as per Rule 9(5) of the Rajasthan Prisoners (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 2006 and Rule 9(v) of the 1958 Rules. (Paras 12, 13).
(C) Scope of Judicial Review under Article 226 - The High Court does not sit as an Appellate Authority to re-appreciate facts to draw a different conclusion unless the decision is founded on extraneous considerations, vitiated by malafides, or patent arbitrariness. (Para 11).
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, who were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for offences under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA) in relation to the serial train bomb blasts of December 1993, sought premature release after undergoing long incarceration. Their representations for release were rejected by the Ministry of Home Affairs and State authorities, citing the heinous nature of the crimes and a specific legal embargo under the Rajasthan prison rules.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the decisions to deny premature release were taken by competent authorities after considering relevant factors, including national security and the specific prohibition under Rule 9(5) of the 2006 Rules and Rule 9(v) of the 1958 Rules, which explicitly state that the Advisory Board shall not consider cases of prisoners convicted under TADA.
Issues: Whether convicts under TADA are eligible for premature release under the Rajasthan Prisoners (Shortening of Sentences) Rules and whether the decisions of the authorities were arbitrary or warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that where explicit rules (such as Rule 9(5) of 2006 Rules and Rule 9(v) of 1958 Rules) create a bar against the consideration of certain convicts for premature release, such rules must be adhered to. Judicial review under Article 226 is limited and cannot be used to substitute the court's view for that of the competent authority unless the decision is perverse or arbitrary.
Result: Writ petitions are hereby dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
-
constitutional law
-
fundamental rights
- right to life and personal liberty (Para 4)
-
fundamental rights
- administrative law
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners: premature release justified after long incarceration. Respondents: release barred under rules and threatens national security. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
3. Court cannot sit as appellate authority over premature release decisions unless vitiated by arbitrariness or mala fides. (Para 11 )
4. Under Article 226, High Court cannot re-appreciate facts unless decision is arbitrary or based on irrelevant considerations. (Para 11 )
5. Writ petitions dismissed — premature release denied — TADA convicts ineligible under Rule 9(5) of Rules 2006. (Para 16 )
6. Are TADA convicts eligible for premature release under the Rajasthan Prisoners Rules?
No — both Rule 9(v) of the 1958 Rules and Rule 9(5) of the 2006 Rules expressly exclude TADA convicts from consideration by the Advisory Board. (Para 6 , 12 , 13 )
7. Can the High Court substitute its own decision for the government's refusal of premature release?
No — under Article 226 the High Court cannot re-appreciate facts or act as an appellate authority unless the decision is arbitrary, mala fide, or based on irrelevant considerations. (Para 11 )
8. Does the case of Laxman Naskar apply to TADA convicts seeking premature release?
No — Laxman Naskar held that a prisoner's case must be considered under the applicable rules, but here the petitioners' case was already considered and rejected in compliance with those rules. (Para 14 )
9. Is the embargo on premature release under the 2006 Rules applicable when the conviction was under the 1958 Rules?
Yes — the same bar existed under Rule 9(v) of the 1958 Rules, so the change in rules does not affect eligibility; the prohibition remains unchanged. (Para 12 , 13 )
1. Asfaq Khan S/o Abdul Aziz, Resident Of Nagori Mohalla, Lalsot Marg, Near Ramkaran Joshi School, Dausa, Rajasthan. (Presently Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur (Raj.)) Through His Son Farookh Khan Son Of Shri Asfaq Aged About 27 Years R/o Lalsot Road Opposite Purana Cinema Hall Dausa Dist. Dausa (Raj.)
2. Fazalur Rehman Sufi S/o Abdul Rehman, Resident Of Room No. 42, Hingwala Building, Souter Street, Agripada, Mumbai. (Presently Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Abre Rehmat Ansari S/o Noor Mohammed Ansari, Resident Of Village Kusoona Khurd, P.o. Gulhariya, Tehsil And P.s. Mehdawal, Dist. Sant Kabir Nagar, Up - 272171. (Presently Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Mohd. Aejaz Akbar S/o Abdul Majeed, Resident Of H. No. 7-7775/6, Naya Mohalla, Mominpura, Gulbarga- 585104, Karnataka, (Presently Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Home, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. The Director General Of Prisons, Directorate Prisons, Ghatgate, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. District Magistrate, Jaipur, Office At Collectorate, Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Superintendent Central Jail, Jaipur (Raj.)
5. The Union Of India, Through The Ministry Of Home Affairs, Govt. Of India, Is-Ii, Division/legal Cell-1, 2Nd Floor, Major Dhyan Chand National Stadium, Near India Gate, New Delhi
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 159/2023
Mohammad Amin S/o Mohammad Usman, Aged About 83 Years, R/o 26-A, ZariwalaChowl, Room No. 39, Mohammad Umar Rjjab Road, Madanpura, Mumbai- 400008. (At Present In Central Jail, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Home, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. The Director General Of Prisons, Directorate Prisons, Ghatgate, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. District Magistrate, Jaipur, Office At Collectorate, Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Superintendent Central Jail, Jaipur (Raj.)
5. The Union Of India, Through The Ministry Of Home Affairs, Govt. Of India, Is-Ii, Division/legal Cell-1, 2nd Floor, Major Dhyan Chand National Stadium, Near India Gate, New Delhi.
----Respondents
D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 818/2023
Mohammed Shamsuddin S/o Late Mohd. Rukumuddin, Aged About 53 Years, R/o No. 6-639, Rangeen Masjid, Mominura, Gulbarga, Karnataka, (Petitioner Is Presently Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, through the Secretary Home, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The Director General Of Prisons, Directorate Prisons, Ghatgate, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. District Magistrate, Jaipur, Office at Collectorate, Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Superintendent Central Jail, Jaipur (Raj.)
5. The Union Of India, through The Ministry Of Home Affairs, Govt. Of India, Is-II, Division/Legal Cell-1, 2nd Floor, Major Dhyan Chand National Stadium, Near India Gate, New Delhi
----Respondents
D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 790/2024
Mohammad Afaq S/o Shri Mohammad Maqsood, Aged About 57 Years, R/o House No. 335/164, Mahmood Nagar Chok, Lucknow (U.P.) Present Address - 401/79, Baradari, Chaupatiya, Police Station Saadat Ganj, District Lucknow (U.P.), (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur (Raj.)) Through His Brother - Mohammad Arshad S/o Shri Mohammad Maqsood, Aged About 53 Years, R/o 401/79, Baradari Chaupatiya, Police Station Saadat Ganj, Lucknow (U.P.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Home, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The Director General Of Prisons, Directorate Prisons, Ghatgate, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. District Magistrate, Jaipur, Office At Collectorate, Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Superintendent Central Jail, Jaipur (Raj.)
5. The Union Of India, Through The Ministry Of Home Affairs, Govt. Of India, IS-II, Division/Legal Cell, 2nd Floor, Major Dhyan Chand National Stadium, Near India Gate, New Delhi.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Deeksha Dwivedi through V.C.
Mr. Tek Chand Swami
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Vyas Sr. Counsel with
Mr. Devesh Yadav
Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, GA cum AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTIC
