[1993 Bow Bazar Blast] Calcutta High Court Stays Early Release Of TADA Convict, Admits State's Appeal

The Calcutta High Court has recently stayed an order by a single bench which allowed the early release of a convict serving life imprisonment for involvement in the infamous Bowbazar blast, which devastated the city of Kolkata in the 1990s, by claiming 69 lives and destroying several buildings. 

A division bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya stayed the order of release upon noting the State's submissions that the convict was not an accused under ordinary criminal statutes, but instead under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA). Court stated that it would need to be enquired whether a convict under the TADA had a vested right to early release or not, and thus admitted the state's appeal while staying the order of release.

The bench however stated that the petitioner would be free to apply for parole before the relevant authorities.

It was submitted by the Advocate General for the State, that the petitioner was involved in one of the most devastating acts of terrorism in the 90s, which claimed multiple lives and was planned in order to create communal disharmony between Hindu and Muslim groups in the city.

It was stated that the petitioner was serving his life sentence under the TADA, and as such did not have any vested right to early release, which was otherwise extended to life convicts under the IPC by the Supreme Court. It was further submitted that the petitioner had ties to various notorious gangs and gang leaders during his time outside and hence releasing him would not auger well with the families of the survivors.

Counsel for the petitioner stated that he had served 31 years of his sentence and that the jail and parole authorities were greatly satisfied by his conduct and that he did not have any criminal antecedents either. It was submitted that the police's mere submissions that he was tied to notorious gangs 30 years ago would not be sufficient to stay his order of release.

In hearing the arguments, the Court noted that while the principles on early release of prisoners had been laid down by the Supreme Court, in cases involving terrorist activities, it would have to be examined whether the petitioner would have a vested right to early release.

Accordingly, the appeal was admitted and the order of release was stayed.

Case: The State of West Bengal and others v Md. Khalid