The Delhi High Court has ordered release of a murder convict serving life sentence, having spent 20 years behind bars, observing that the Sentence Review Board (SRB) had repeatedly rejected his applications for premature release without application of mind.

The petitioner, having undergone imprisonment of more than 25 years including remission, had challenged SRB order rejecting his request for premature release.

SRB had first rejected the petitioner's case for premature release on the grounds of the manner, gravity, perversity and heinousness of the crime committed by him, as well as his unsatisfactory jail conduct during his lodgment in the semi-open jail, and possibility of his committing crime again. Thereafter his request was rejected four more times pursuant to which he moved the high court.

Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that the case of the petitioner for premature release was dealt with by the SRB in quite unscientific and casual manner, that too repeatedly.

"In the present case, one of the most glaring indicators of non-application of mind, which I find is as follows. The arguments in the present case were partly heard on 11.05.2026 and it was pointed out by learned counsel for petitioner that the manner in which the Police Verification Report was submitted is a strong indicator of clear non-application of mind. It was pointed out by learned counsel that the Police Verification Report dated 28.08.2025 was strongly in favour of the petitioner when it was placed before the concerned DCP for being transmitted to SRB, but in his covering communication dated 15.09.2025 the DCP wrote that: “as per the report, premature release of the convict Moti @ Mohit S/o Dhan Bahadur is not recommended”. It was argued that the concerned DCP did not care to go through even the crisp 1½ page Police Verification Report. On this aspect, it was considered appropriate, so the concerned DCP was called upon to explain, if so desired

Accordingly, the concerned DCP submitted explanation dated 12.05.2026, but without explaining anything. Rather, in the said explanation, the concerned DCP went on to improvise and also observed those aspects which did not form part of the Police Verification Report dated 28.08.2025," it said.

When given the opportunity to explain, the DCP instead of gracefully accepting it to be a bona fide error, not just tried to justify his non-recommendation but even improvised the stand in a "vindictive manner" the court said.

The court thus said that the non-recommendation by the concerned DCP, which formed one of the bases of the SRB's order was "blinded by total non-application of mind".

The court said that while premature release falls in the domain of the executive, and the judicial organ of the State has power of judicial review. However where the executive organ of the "State opts to turn blind eye to the above mentioned plethora of judicial verdicts" including Asif Alias Naeem laying down specific guidelines, should a constitutional court be so helpless that it finds no option but to throw the ball back into the court of the executive, reducing the aggrieved prisoner to a ping-pong ball, the court asked.

The court thus said that sending the petitioner back to SRB would not be conscionable. The court further noted that the DCP's communication was totally contrary to the Police Verification Report, which was being forwarded by him to the SRB.

It further said that this is not the first occasion when the SRB considered case of the petitioner for premature release and rejected it, but the fifth occasion when the petitioner was denied premature release.

This despite the court's coordinate bench having brought to the notice of SRB the judicially sanctified guidelines to be followed by SRB, but those guidelines were again flagrantly slighted, the court said.

"If now again the matter is remanded and the SRB opts to repeat its stereotyped response, the petitioner will again have to approach this court and looking at overflowing dockets of this court dealing with almost 100 cases every day, one cannot predict when he will get chance to be heard. In the meanwhile, the constant suffering of incarceration will lead to frustration and possibly reversal of his reformation. In view of above discussion, this petition is allowed and the impugned order/minutes of meeting dated 16.10.2025 of the Sentence Review Board to the extent of rejection of case of the petitioner for premature release is quashed and consequently, the petitioner is directed to be released forthwith from jail, where he is undergoing the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on him in the case FIR No. 428/2004 of PS Defence Colony for offence under Section 302/380/201/411/34 IPC"

At the outset court referred to Rig Ved, the largest and oldest of the four sacred texts of Hinduism, wherein a verse which is a prayer to the Lord Varun (upholder of cosmic law) states "that we be not destroyed by our past errors committed due to ignorance or thoughtlessness and we be cleansed and set free".

The court further quoted author Oscar Wilde who said, “No saint is without a past, no sinner is without a future”. It also referred to Kautilya's Arthashastra which made references to the elements of reformative policy of sentencing that later came to be known as “remission”.

Referring to the SRB's decision–the fifth rejection order, the court said that there was nothing to suggest that the board had applied its mind afresh, instead of just "parroting the minutes of the earlier meetings".

The court also said that the petitioner is first-time offender and has no objectionable antecedents which is a vital factor in determining the possibility of his reformation and grant of premature release.

The court then considered the Police Verification Report dated 28.08.2025 of the SHO concerned, forwarded to the concerned DCP by the concerned ACP. According to the same, the total criminal involvement of the petitioner is only in the present case and he does not belong to any criminal group/gang/syndicate. The said police verification report categorically records that the petitioner does not have propensity to commit crime again on being released, and that there is no factor on which his premature release can be opposed. The report further mentions that no act of indiscipline or untoward incident including acts of aggression or violence was reported against the petitioner when he was released on bail/parole/furlough.

On argument of propensity to commit further crime the court said that in the Police Verification Report forwarded by the ACP concerned, it was specifically observed by the concerned SHO that the petitioner has no propensity of committing crime if released from jail.

It further said that petitioner completed his graduation from jail and also worked in jail in different capacities across variety of occupations, ranging from store assistant, plumber, control room assistant, office attendant, and even VC attendant. When he was released on parole or furlough, the petitioner took a job working as an attendant in restaurants in Noida. It also said that the Social Investigation Report of the Probation Officer explicitly recorded that the petitioner on being released plans to continue working in a restaurant and he is determined to reintegrate fully into his community and family, ensuring their socio-economic stability and wellbeing.

It said that leaving the "petitioner remain dumped till his last breath" can be validation of the different other theories of punishment in the form of the deterrence or retribution or prevention, but would completely demolish the reformatory idea of punishment, and consequently would defeat the currently recognized tenet of purposive sentencing.

Case title: MOTI ALIAS MOHIT v/s STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

W.P.(CRL) 307/2026 & CRL.M.A. 2951/2026

Counsel for petitioner: Ms. Vrinda Bhandari and Ms. Vanshita Gupta, Advocates.

Counsel for respondent: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC for State with Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Advocate.

Click Here To Read/Download Order