$~68 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010142222026 + W.P.(CRL) 1121/2026 USMAN KHAN @ BUNTY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sundeep Sehgal & Mr. M.P. Singh, Advs. versus STATE OF GNCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rahul Tyagi ASC (Crl.) with Mr. Sangeet Sibou, Ms. Priya Rai, Mr. Shubham Goyal, Mr. Avinash Kumar Singh, Mr. Priyansh Raj Singh, Advs. SI Sandeep ARSC Crime Branch. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 02.09.2026 1. The petition is for the following reliefs: “Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order passed in Item No. 13 in minutes of Sentence Review Board Meeting dated 23.12.2025; b. Issue a Writ or order in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent to allow pre-mature release of Petitioner in Case/FIR No. 256/2010 U/s 302/363/364A/201/ 120B/34 IPC PS Vikas Puri. And; c. Pass any other order or further orders. which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice” 2. The petitioner stands convicted under Sections 302/363/364A/201/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. He has been 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 08/09/2026 at 12:06:04 in jail since 04.11.2010 and as per the nominal roll, as on 21.04.2026, the petitioner had served 15 years 5 months of actual custody and 17 years 4 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 contends that the petitioner has been on furlough 8 times. The status report and nominal roll also indicates that the petitioner’s conduct during incarceration has been found to be satisfactory. 4. Recently, this Court in Ramesh v. State (NCT of Delhi),1 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; 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 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 08/09/2026 at 12:06:04 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. In the instant case, the petitioner has contended that the Sentence Review Board (‘SRB’) has previously rejected his application for early release on 23.12.2025. The material portion of the Impugned Order reads as under: “In view of the manner of commission of the offence involving a high degree of Premeditation, planning and collaboration, the number of co-accused, and the present age of the convict, the Board is of the considered opinion that the possibility of recidivism cannot be ruled out at this stage. On an overall assessment of the societal impact of the offence, the likelihood of repetition, the extent of reformation 1 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 08/09/2026 at 12:06:04 achieved, and whether any useful purpose would be served by further incarceration, the Board finds the case not fit for premature release. Therefore, the Board unanimously decided to REJECT the case for premature release of convict Usman Khan @ Bunty S/o Sh. Shabbuddin Khan at this stage.” 8. A perusal of the aforenoted would indicate that early/pre-mature release have been denied on the grounds of heinous nature of the offence and that the “possibility of recidivism cannot be ruled out”. While the impugned order notes that the SRB has taken note of the purported societal impact of the offence, the likelihood of repetition and the extent of reformation, there is nothing to indicate as to what material was analysed by the SRB. The order does not seem to evince application of mind to the relevant material. Such an approach is at the teeth of the decision of this Court in Ramesh (supra) and resultantly cannot be sustained. 9. Importantly, it may also be noted that there are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner and even the immediate 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 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. 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 08/09/2026 at 12:06:04 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 SEPTEMBER 02, 2026 Ab/Rao 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 08/09/2026 at 12:06:04