W.P. (CRL.) 523/2021

Page 1 of 14

$~32

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

+

W.P.(CRL) 523/2021

CRL.M.A.3726/2021 (directions)

SURENDER SINGH

..... Petitioner

Represented by:

Ms.Neha Kapoor, Advocate.

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

..... Respondent

Represented by:

Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, Additional

Standing Counsel for State with

Ms.Jyoti Babbar, Advocate with

Inspector Rajeev Ranjan, PS SOS-

II/Crime Branch.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

JUDGMENT: (ORAL)

The hearing has been conducted through Physical Mode.

1.

By this petition, petitioner inter alia seeks quashing of the order dated

11^th December, 2020 whereby the case of the petitioner for grant of

premature release by the Sentence Review Board (in short SRB) was

rejected and release of the petitioner on parole till such time his case is not

considered by the Sentence Review Board.

2.

Petitioner alongwith Shree Bhagwan was convicted in FIR

Nos.411/1986 under Sections 302/397/406/392/34 IPC registered at PS

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000253

W.P. (CRL.) 523/2021

Page 2 of 14

Connaught Place, Delhi for the offences of double murder while committing

bank robbery. When the petitioner and co-accused Shree Bhagwan were

arrested, recovery of the fire arms was affected from them resulting in

registration of two FIRs under Section 25 Arms Act being FIR

Nos.439/1987 and 440/1987. With the consent of the accused, the three

charge-sheets were committed to the Court of Sessions, tried together and

common evidence was led. The petitioner and the co-accused Shree

Bhagwan were convicted and awarded life imprisonment. The two

convictions were challenged by the petitioner before this Court in Crl.

Appeal No.381/2003, which appeal was dismissed on 23^rd July, 2007.

3.

After having undergone the requisite sentence, the case of the

petitioner was placed before the Sentence Review Board repeatedly

including in the meeting dated 11^th December, 2020 which have been

challenged in the present petition..

4.

According to learned counsel for the petitioner, Shree Bhagwan, the

co-accused was released on the recommendation of the Sentence Review

Board in its meeting dated 29^th February, 2016 however, the petitioner was

held eligible for consideration for premature release only after completion

of twenty years in terms of the guidelines in vogue before coming into force

of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018. The petitioner’s name was sent for

consideration in Sentence Review Board meeting dated 19^th July, 2019

however, despite filing application under the Right to Information Act, the

petitioner was not provided the minutes of the meeting and the rejection

order. Thereafter, on the basis of the minutes of the meeting of the Sentence

Review Board available on internet, the petitioner came to know that his

case was also put up in the meetings dated 4^th October, 2018, 19^th

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000253

W.P. (CRL.) 523/2021

Page 3 of 14

September, 2019, 28^th February, 2020, 5^th/6^th August, 2020 and 11^th

December, 2020 however, every time it was rejected on the ground of

gravity of the offence. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, since

the petitioner was convicted in the year 2003 his case is neither governed by

the Sentence Review Board Guidelines, 2004 nor the Delhi Prison Rules,

2018. It is claimed that even as per the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 the gravity

of offence does not make a convict ineligible to be considered for pre-

mature release.

5.

Petitioner claims that Rule-1249 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 has

been violated by the respondent as the Sentence Review Board should meet

atleast once in every three months. Reliance is placed on the decision of the

Division Bench of this Court reported as 2019 (176) DRJ 481: 2019 Cri.LJ

4123 Sushil Sharma vs. State wherein this Court noted that the Sentence

R