Delhi High Court Orders Premature Release Of Life Convict After 22 Yrs, Slams 'Mechanical' Rejections Based Solely On Gravity Of Offence

The Delhi High Court has directed the premature release of a life convict who had undergone over 22 years of actual imprisonment, holding that repeated rejection of remission by the Sentence Review Board (SRB) on the sole ground of the “heinousness” of the offence was arbitrary and contrary to settled principles of reformative justice.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna allowed the plea filed by one Rajab Ali challenging the decision of SRB rejecting his plea for premature release. He was sentenced to life imprisonment in 2005 in a rape case.

At present, Ali was in a Semi-Open prison in Tihar Central Jail and was working as a cleaner or sweeper. In 2016, the SRB had rejected his plea on the basis of nature, gravity of the offence and the threat to the family of the victim, despite the recommendation of the Chief Probation Officer. This was followed by second rejection by SRB.

He faced his tenth rejection in 2024 by SRB on the basis of heinousness and manner of offence, gravity and perversity of the crime, his age and strong opposition by the Police authorities.

Ali stated that he had been released on Parole thrice and on emergency Parole during the COVID-19 and thereafter again in 2021. He was also granted Furlough 22 times.

Allowing his plea for premature release, the Court said that the reasons for repeatedly rejecting the remission remained practically the same, only change being in the number of years of incarceration and the number of Paroles and Furloughs enjoyed by Ali.

It added that gravity or heinousness of crime is to be weighed against the reformation and the readiness of Ali to integrate in the society, while considering his case for remission.

“The repeated rejection on the ground of heinousness or gravity, is completely misplaced and against the principles formulated in the remission policy,” the judge said.

The Court further noted that Ali's jail conduct as well as overall conduct was reported to be satisfactory and that his Nominal Roll showed that his conduct was not only satisfactory but earned many commendations.

“The Petitioner being in Semi-Open Jail since 04.09.2017, clearly spells the completely reformed conduced of the Petitioner who has displayed good character, devotion and diligence in discharge of his duties and has maintained self discipline. There could not have been better evidence of he being fully reformed in his character and disposition,” the Court said.

It observed that the “overwhelming record” was a testament to Ali having reformed himself and that he was ready to be integrated in the society. The Court held that having spent 22 years of incarceration and 28 years of incarceration including remission with no adverse comment, coupled with him being shifted to Semi-Open and Open Jail, clearly reflected that there was “nil propensity” to commit the offence and that was a “totally reformed person” fit to go back to the society.

“His continued detention despite fulfilling all the criteria and reflecting his complete reformation and loss of propensity to commit crime and fulfilling all the criteria laid down in the Remission Policy, 2004 as well as the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 and denying him consistently the benefit of remission, directly impacts his Right to Life and Personal Libertyunder Article 21,” the Court said.

Counsel for Petitioner: Ms. Vrinda Bhandari, Ms. Vanshita Gupta, Ms. Shrutika Pandey and Ms. Ragini Nagpal, Advocates

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC

Title: RAJAB ALI v. STATE & ANR

click here to read order