$~122 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010295392025 + W.P.(CRL) 1584/2025 RAJNATH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Shannu Baghel and Mr. Aakash, Advocates. versus STATE NCT GOVT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, ASC with Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, Advocate for State. SI Rahul Kumar, PS Model Town. 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, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quashing the impugned SRB order 30.06.2023 in regard to the petitioner; and b. Issue a Writ, Order or direction in the nature of Mandamus to the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner for premature release under the Remission Policy dated 16.07.2004; and c. Issue a Writ, Order or direction in the nature of Mandamus to the State Government to release of the Petitioner under the Remission Policy dated 16.01.2004 on immediate basis; and d. To pass an interim order, for the Petitioner to be released on interim bail during the pendency of the instant 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 12:44:13 petition;” 2. The petitioner in the instant case stands convicted for the offences under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) vide judgement of conviction dated 21.03.2020, and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. He has been in judicial custody since 21.02.2001 and as per the minutes of the Sentence Review Board (‘SRB’) dated 30.06.2023, the petitioner had served actual custody of 21 years, 10 months and 21 days in actual and 28 years, 03 months and 25 days with remission. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s application for early release has been rejected on multiple occasions on grounds that are legally unsustainable. He further submits that the petitioner’s conduct has been satisfactory except 9 days’ late surrender after emergency parole and 5 months 18 days’ late surrender from furlough. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been granted parole 4 times and furlough 8 times. 4. Recently, this Court in Ramesh v. State (NCT of Delhi),2 after relying upon a catena of decisions culled out 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, it being—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; 2 2026: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 12:44:13 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 the society; and third, the socio-economic condition of the convict’s family arising from his continued incarceration. 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 rule. 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. The Impugned Order rejecting the petitioner’s application seeking premature/early release reads as under: 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 12:44:13 “Conclusion: Reports received from Police and Social Welfare Departments for premature release of convict and after taking into account all the facts of the case and circumstances under which the offence was committed i.e. the convict had committed a heinous crime of rape of 04 years minor girl, heinousness/gravity and perversity of the crime, un-satisfactory jail conduct in view of punishment, possibility of committing crime again etc., the Board unanimously REJECTS premature release of Rajnath @ Dharmender S/o Sh. Ram Sakal at this stage.” 15. A perusal of the Impugned Order would reveal that SRB’s rejection is based on purported un-satisfactory jail conduct, the possibility of committing crime again, and the heinousness of the offence. Such reasoning is at the teeth of the decision of this Court in Ramesh (supra) and resultantly cannot be sustained. 16. Bearing in mind the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Impugned Order deserves to be set aside and the case of the petitioner deserves to be reconsidered in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in Ramesh as well as the observations made hereinabove. 17. 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. 18. 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 reasons on irrelevant considerations of the kind detailed above, shall be taken serious note of. 19. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of. 20. If the grievance of the petitioner is not mitigated, he shall be at liberty 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 12:44:13 to file a fresh petition. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J AUGUST 19, 2026 aks/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 12:44:13