Delhi High Court Orders Immediate Release of Double-Murder Life Convict After 20 Years; Finds Fifth SRB Rejection Mechanical, Unreasoned and Contrary to Reformative Principles Justice
Delhi High Court Quashes Fifth Rejection of Life Convict’s Premature Release; Finds Sentence Review Board Mechanically Repeated Earlier Reasons Despite Reformation Evidence
Facts
The petitioner, Moti alias Mohit, was convicted in FIR No. 428/2004 registered at Police Station Defence Colony for offences including murder and theft. By judgment dated 26 February 2010 he was convicted under Sections 302/380/34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. His conviction was upheld by the Delhi High Court and thereafter by the Supreme Court.
By the time the present writ petition was considered, the petitioner had undergone more than 20 years of actual imprisonment and nearly 25 years including remission. His case for premature release had been rejected by the Sentence Review Board on five occasions. The fourth rejection had already been set aside by a coordinate bench of the Delhi High Court on 25 July 2025, with a direction to reconsider his case in accordance with judicially settled guidelines.
On reconsideration, however, the SRB again rejected his request on 16 October 2025. It relied on the gravity of the double murder, a 2018 jail punishment for possession of two grams of tobacco, and an adverse police recommendation.
The petitioner challenged this fifth rejection before the Delhi High Court.
Issues
The principal issues before the Court were:
- Whether the SRB had genuinely and independently applied its mind while rejecting the petitioner’s premature-release request for the fifth time.
- Whether the SRB could substantially rely upon the gravity of the original crime while disregarding subsequent evidence of reformation, rehabilitation and prison conduct.
- Whether the adverse recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner of Police could be relied upon when the underlying police verification report itself substantially supported the petitioner.
- Whether one jail punishment in 2018 for possession of two grams of tobacco could justify continued denial of premature release after more than 20 years of incarceration.
- Whether, after repeated defective reconsiderations, the High Court should again remand the matter to the SRB or directly order the petitioner’s release.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that each successive rejection by the SRB was essentially a copy-paste of the earlier rejection, showing complete non-application of mind.
He relied upon the Social Investigation Report of the Probation Officer, which recorded no meaningful adverse material and showed that he had undergone substantial reform.
He also relied upon the police verification report dated 28 August 2025. According to the petitioner, the underlying report did not oppose his release and in fact indicated that he had no propensity to commit crime again. Despite this, the DCP’s forwarding communication stated that premature release was “not recommended.”
The petitioner further pointed out that he had repeatedly been granted parole and furlough and had always surrendered in time without misusing liberty. He had pursued education, completed graduation while incarcerated and remained gainfully employed in jail and during temporary releases.
It was argued that another remand would be meaningless because the SRB had already failed to undertake a genuine reconsideration despite an earlier High Court direction.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State supported the SRB’s rejection.
It emphasized that the petitioner had been convicted for a serious double murder followed by theft and had also received a prison punishment in 2018, after which he was transferred from semi-open prison back to a closed jail.
The State contended that the SRB was entitled to consider the effect of premature release upon society and the victims’ families.
It further argued that premature release lies primarily within the executive domain and that, even if the Court found defects in the SRB’s decision, the proper course should ordinarily be to remit the matter for reconsideration rather than directly order release.
Analysis of the Law
The Court reiterated that a life convict has no absolute right to premature release, but once the applicable government policy makes him eligible for consideration, he acquires a right to fair, meaningful, reasoned and non-arbitrary consideration.
The Court examined the Delhi Government’s 2004 premature-release policy. That policy requires consideration not merely of the offence but also factors such as:
- whether the prisoner has lost the potential for committing crime;
- whether he can be reclaimed as a useful member of society; and
- the socio-economic condition of his family.
The Court held that eligibility does not guarantee release, but neither can the nature of the original offence operate as an automatic veto.
The decision-making process must meaningfully examine the prisoner’s post-conviction conduct, progress towards reformation, rehabilitation prospects and actual likelihood of reoffending.
Precedent Analysis
Laxman Naskar v. Union of India / State of West Bengal
The Court referred to the settled factors governing premature-release decisions, including whether the offence affects society at large, likelihood of repetition, future criminal propensity, whether continued incarceration serves any useful purpose and the socio-economic condition of the convict’s family.
These factors require an individualized assessment rather than a mechanical reliance on the original crime.
State of Haryana v. Jagdish
This precedent reinforced the requirement that remission and premature-release policies must be applied fairly and consistently and that relevant factors concerning the prisoner’s reformation cannot be ignored.
Satish @ Sabbe v. State of Uttar Pradesh
The Supreme Court had held that neither the length of sentence nor gravity of the original offence can by itself constitute the sole basis for denying premature release.
An assessment of future criminality must rest upon antecedents and prison conduct rather than vague apprehensions. The Delhi High Court relied significantly upon this principle.
Vijay Kumar Shukla v. State NCT of Delhi
This Delhi High Court precedent criticised SRB decisions that repeatedly reproduce earlier rejection reasons without meaningful analysis.
It emphasized that the SRB must examine reformation, rehabilitation, conduct, police and probation material, and must issue a speaking order.
Asif Alias Naeem v. State of NCT of Delhi
This case had specifically been referred to in the earlier remand concerning the same petitioner.
It held that the SRB’s discretion is broad but structured by policy, prison rules and the obligation to give reasons. Gravity of the offence cannot drown out every other mandatory consideration.
Rohit Chaturvedi v. State of Uttarakhand
This recent Supreme Court decision became important on the question of relief.
The Supreme Court had recognized that where an authority has repeatedly taken an unsustainable view and all relevant material is already before the constitutional court, another remand may amount to an empty formality. In an appropriate case, the Court can itself intervene rather than prolong repeated administrative reconsideration.
The Delhi High Court relied upon this principle in deciding not to send Moti’s case back to the SRB again.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court found clear non-application of mind at multiple levels.
First, the police verification report dated 28 August 2025 was substantially favourable to the petitioner. Yet the DCP’s forwarding letter mechanically stated that his premature release was not recommended. The Court found that the DCP apparently had not even properly read the report.
The SRB then relied upon that adverse recommendation. The Court therefore held that the defect in the DCP’s consideration had “percolated” into the SRB’s decision.
Second, the SRB’s 2025 rejection was virtually a reproduction of previous rejection orders. It did not disclose genuine fresh application of mind. A decision affecting liberty must contain reasons sufficient to show what actually persuaded the decision-maker.
Third, the petitioner’s individual record strongly supported reformation. He was a first-time offender, had no other criminal antecedents, completed graduation in prison and worked in several capacities including as a store assistant, plumber, office attendant and VC attendant. During periods of parole and furlough he worked in restaurants and supported his family.
Fourth, the police report itself stated that he did not belong to any gang or criminal syndicate and had no propensity to commit crime again. No aggression, violence or misconduct had been recorded while he was on bail, parole or furlough.
Fifth, the State’s reliance upon the 2018 tobacco violation was found disproportionate. The petitioner had already been punished for possession of two grams of tobacco by being shifted from semi-open to closed prison. He could not be penalized indefinitely for the same solitary prison infraction, especially when there was no other jail punishment over more than 20 years.
The Court also held that the seriousness of the original double murder could not permanently eclipse evidence of genuine reform. The crime remained grave, but the purpose of premature-release jurisprudence would be defeated if the original offence alone permanently prevented consideration of reformation.
Finally, the Court refused to send the case back to the SRB for a sixth consideration. It noted that the earlier rejection had already been set aside and the SRB had nevertheless repeated the same mechanical approach. Another remand would only prolong incarceration and reduce the petitioner to what the Court described as a “ping-pong ball” between the executive and the Court.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court held that the fifth rejection of the petitioner’s premature-release application was legally unsustainable because it suffered from non-application of mind, mechanical reasoning and failure to meaningfully consider evidence of reformation and rehabilitation.
The Court further found that the petitioner deserved premature release on his individual merits after more than 20 years of incarceration.
Instead of remanding the matter again to the Sentence Review Board, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the SRB’s decision dated 16 October 2025 and directed that Moti alias Mohit be released forthwith from jail.
The Court also directed that the judgment be forwarded to the Chairperson of the Sentence Review Board and the Director General of Prisons, Delhi, for meaningful consideration of concerns regarding the composition, functioning and efficacy of the SRB.
Case Details
Case: Moti Alias Mohit v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Case Number: W.P.(CRL) 307/2026 & CRL.M.A. 2951/2026
Judge: Justice Girish Kathpalia
Date: 31 August 2026
Result: Petition allowed; fifth SRB rejection quashed; petitioner directed to be released forthwith from life imprisonment after more than 20 years of incarceration.
