$~37 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010170332025 + W.P.(CRL) 1014/2025 KUNDAN SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vikas Kumar, DHCLSC versus STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondent Through: Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, ASC for the State. SI Ram Kishan, PS: Mehrauli. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 19.08.2026 1. The petition is for the following reliefs: “a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction thereby setting aside Order F .18/102/2003/2024- II/HG/3026-27 dated 04.12.2024 accepting the recommendations/minutes of meeting of Sentence Review Board held on 30.08.2024 and 18.09.2024 thereby rejecting the premature release of the Petitioner; b) Issue writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction for premature release of the petitioner forthwith; c) In the alternative, release the Petitioner on bail/ parole/ furlough /etc. till the disposal of the present Petition.” 2. The petitioner stands convicted under Sections 302/201/404 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. He has been in jail since 30.10.2007 and as on the date of filing of the status report i.e., 04.08.2025,the petitioner had This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/08/2026 at 12:44:10 undergone actual custody of approximately 15 years and 8 months and 17 years and 2 months with remission. In terms of the Order bearing No. F- 18/5/94/Home (Genl) dated 16.07.2004 issued by the Lieutenant Governor of the NCT of Delhi (“2004 Guidelines”), the petitioner is eligible for early release. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Impugned Order dated 30.08.2024/18.09.2024 is erroneous and unsustainable, as it is de hors the settled principles of law governing the adjudication of an application for early/pre-mature release of a given convict. He submits that the petitioner is entitled to early release. He also states that the fact that he has been granted parole on 9 occasions and has maintained satisfactory conduct during incarceration ought to imbue favourable consideration. 4. Recently, this Court in Ramesh v. State (NCT of Delhi),1 after relying upon a catena of decisions, laid down the principles which are to apply while adjudicating upon the application of a convict for premature release. A three-fold criterion was set out by the Court, namely—first, the propensity of a convict to commit an offence again, which is to be adjudicated on the basis of the convict’s jail conduct as well as his antecedents. Baseless and unsubstantiated apprehension of victims or witnesses is not relevant for determining likelihood to commit a crime after release. The assessment is to be made on the basis of convict’s antecedents and conduct while in jail; second, the purpose which would be served by the continued confinement of the convict in prison, including whether the convict continues to pose a danger to society; and third, the socio-economic condition of the convict’s family arising from his continued incarceration. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/08/2026 at 12:44:10 5. The Court found the following factors/considerations to be irrelevant for the purposes of adjudicating upon an early/pre-mature release of a given convict—first, gravity of the original offence and the length of the sentence imposed are not by themselves relevant; second, the fact that “wrong” or “negative” message would go out to society is not a relevant factor; and third, a mere opposition by the police authorities to premature release is irrelevant unless it is supported by cogent material. Premature release also cannot be denied on the sole ground that the police have not recommended release. 6. Importantly, the following, inter alia, were considered as material/relevant factors to determine the question of early/premature release of a given convict—first, post-conviction conduct of the convict is the principal indicator to assess desirability of premature release. In the absence of contemporary and cogent evidence to the contrary, sustained good conduct in custody cannot be ignored or discounted; and second, where a convict has transitioned through the incarceration process and has, after due consideration, been moved from regular prison to a semi-open prison and thereafter to an open prison, with a good ‘report card’ through those stages, such progression is a critical factor that ought to imbue any assessment of premature release. 7. In the instant case, the petitioner has contended that the Sentence Review Board (‘SRB’) has previously considered and rejected his application for early release in its meetings held on 30.08.2024 and 18.09.2024. The material portion of the Impugned Order reads as under: “The Board considered the reports received from Police and 12026:DHC:6455. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/08/2026 at 12:44:10 SocialWelfareDepartments and took into account all the facts and circumstances of the case.The convict had committed murder of hisfriend and chopped his body.Considering the manner under which the perverse crime was committed, thegravity and brutality of the crime, exceptional violence, unsatisfactory jail conductin view of multiple jail punishments, non-reformative attitude, the Board unanimously decided to REJECT premature release of convict Kundan Singh S/oJagat Singh at this stage.” 8. A perusal of the aforesaid reasons would indicate that the petitioner’s application for early/pre-mature release has been rejected, inter alia, on the grounds of the“manner under which the perverse crime was committed, the gravity and brutality of the crime, exceptional violence…”. Such considerations, in view of the principles laid down by this Court in Ramesh (supra), cannot form the basis for denying premature release. 9. Importantly, it may also be noted that there are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner and even the recent jail conduct of the petitioner has been found to be satisfactory. 10. Bearing in mind the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Impugned Order deserves to be set aside and the petitioner’s case deserves to be reconsidered in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in Ramesh as well as the observations made hereinabove. 11. Accordingly, the Impugned Order stands set aside, let the petitioner’s application for early/premature release be reconsidered in the forthcoming meeting of the SRB. Thereafter, let the decision be communicated to the petitioner without any delay. 12. It is clarified that the decision to be taken by the SRB must be in accordance with the principles laid by this Court in Ramesh as well as the observations made hereinabove. Any deviation from it, including providing This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/08/2026 at 12:44:10 reasons on irrelevant considerations of the kind detailed above, shall be taken serious note of. 13. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of. 14. If the grievance of the petitioner is not mitigated, he shall be at liberty to file a fresh petition. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J AUGUST 19, 2026/P/ksr This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/08/2026 at 12:44:10