The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to urgently hear West Bengal’s plea challenging the Delhi High Court order granting premature release to Md Rashid Khan, a life convict in the 1993 Kolkata Bowbazar blast case. The hearing is scheduled before CJI Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana.
The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear urgently a petition filed by the State of West Bengal challenging a Delhi High Court ruling that directed the premature release of Md Rashid Khan. Khan, a life convict in the 1993 Kolkata (Bowbazar) blast case, has been in prison for more than 33 years. The matter was taken up before a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana.
At the outset, counsel for the State submitted that the State Sentence Review Board (SSRB) had recommended against Khan’s release. The State sought immediate listing of its appeal against the Delhi High Court’s order. Accepting the request, the Bench agreed to hear the case on Monday, i.e. June 22.
The challenge follows a June 5 judgment of the Delhi High Court, which ordered the 77-year-old convict’s immediate release. The High Court held that keeping a demonstrably reformed prisoner incarcerated after over three decades serves no meaningful purpose, and that the reformative objective of punishment should prevail over retribution.
Khan was arrested on March 3, 1993. He was later convicted by the Designated TADA Court in Kolkata on August 31, 2001 under Sections 120B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, along with provisions of the Explosive Substances Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA). He was sentenced to life imprisonment, and his conviction was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court.
The Bowbazar blast occurred on March 16, 1993, a few days after the Mumbai serial blasts. As per the records, a large cache of explosives allegedly stockpiled by local don Rashid Khan exploded in Kolkata’s Bowbazar area, killing 69 persons and damaging several residential buildings. In its June 5 judgment, the Delhi High Court observed that reformation is the dominant goal of sentencing and that efforts should be made during incarceration to reform the prisoner.
The High Court observed,
“It has been held that reformation should be the dominant objective of a punishment and during incarceration, every effort should be made to recreate the good man out of a convicted prisoner,”
The High Court further held that once a co-convict has been granted remission and the convict seeking premature release demonstrates established individual reformation, the mere gravity of the offence cannot justify continued incarceration.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna noted:
“Though in the matter of remission, no parity can be claimed for remission as individual conduct has to be seen, but this fact is significant, in the context of the gravity of offence. If for the same offence, co-convict could be granted remission, gravity of offence cannot be a ground to deny the benefit to the Petitioner, if he satisfies all the criteria.”
The Delhi High Court recorded that Khan’s co-convict, Pannalal Jaysoara, had already been granted premature release in March 2014. The judgment also examined the conduct of the State Sentence Review Board.
According to the High Court, at its 56th meeting held on March 25, 2015, the SSRB recommended Khan’s premature release after considering material relating to his conduct, age, rehabilitation prospects and prison record. However, the recommendation was not implemented due to the Supreme Court’s interim directions in Union of India v. V. Sriharan dealing with remission of TADA convicts. The SSRB then reversed its recommendation in 2017 and again in 2018, citing the gravity of the offence and alleged societal impact.
The High Court held that the Board’s reversal was not supported by any factual basis and observed:
“Though the State Remission Board had recommended remission of the Petitioner in its Meeting on 25.03.2015, it got caught in the legal rigmarole of the jurisdiction being of State or Centre, leading to a change of heart and subsequent denial of Remission. There were no change of circumstances, rather it was progressing age; despite which the remission was thereafter, denied without any basis.”
The High Court also noted that Khan’s prison conduct was consistently described as “very very good,” and that he had completed multiple paroles without any breach. At 77 years old, the Court recorded that he was also suffering from ailments including diabetes, hypertension and cataract. Concluding that the “very low likelihood of the recurrence of offence” existed, the Delhi High Court ordered his immediate release.
West Bengal has now moved the Supreme Court seeking to set aside the Delhi High Court’s direction.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE