The Calcutta High Court Today (May 13th) stayed a single judge order directing the West Bengal State Sentence Review Board (SSRB) to consider the early release of Mohd Khalid, who has been in jail for the last 31 years after being convicted in the Bowbazar bomb blast case of 1993.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
WEST BENGAL: The Calcutta High Court stayed a ruling from a single judge that had instructed the West Bengal State Sentence Review Board (SSRB) to evaluate the potential for early release of Mohd Khalid, who has been incarcerated for 31 years following his conviction in the 1993 Bowbazar bomb blast case.
The case was reviewed by a Bench comprising Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya. They cited the Bombay High Court’s decision in Arun Gawali vs State of Maharashtra, which established that convicts prosecuted under specific statutes such as the Terrorism And Disruptive Activities (Prevention) (TADA) Act do not qualify for remission benefits. The Bench emphasized,
“At the outset, we clarify that there is no fundamental right to remission. This Court has to consider the effect of this judgment on this case. Since fine questions of law are required to be considered and any decision will have precedential value. Further, we take note of the fact that there are other four convicts in the case. Therefore, there will be a stay on the operative part of the judgment of the single-judge,”
-and confirmed that final arguments will be heard starting June 24.
This decision comes in the wake of an appeal by the State against an order from April 10 by Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, who had encouraged the government to contemplate granting remission to Khalid, convicted in the tragic events of March 16, 1993, when two buildings in Central Kolkata’s Bowbazar were destroyed by a bomb, resulting in 69 deaths.
Khalid, having spent three decades behind bars, petitioned the Calcutta High Court for an early release.
The SSRB had initially rejected his request, citing his close ties to Rashid Khan, the architect of the bombing. However, Justice Bhattacharyya challenged this reasoning, arguing,
“The association of the petitioner with a criminal mastermind (who himself is in custody for as long) thirty-one years back cannot be a reasonable basis whatsoever for automatically assuming that the petitioner would merrily jump back into criminal activities the moment he is released. It is next to impossible for a person to continue to pretend to be a good man for over thirty years within the extremely restrictive confines of a prison, under constant supervision, scrutiny and monitoring of the jail authorities,”
-highlighting the transformative effect of long-term incarceration on Khalid.
Further supporting Khalid’s bid for freedom, Justice Bhattacharyya noted reports from jail and probation officials that attested to his reformed character and exemplary behavior. He pointed out,
“What is evident from such reports is that the petitioner has been reformed beyond recognition over the last three decades in incarceration. It would be an unwarranted stigma on the petitioner if the shadow of his past is permitted to loom large over his present. It cannot be over-emphasized that the primary object in modern penology is reformation and correction and the objective of punishment is to reform the convict and bring him back to society, assisting him in reintegration and not to wreak vengeance on him due to his past conduct,”
-before reiterating his recommendation for considering Khalid’s plea for remission.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Terrorist Blasts
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
