Delhi High Court
Asif @ Naeem vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 17 February, 2026
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 4309/2025, CRL.M.A. 38794/2025, CRL.M.A.
38795/2025, CRL.M.A. 1110/2026 & CRL.M.A. 1111/2026
Reserved on: 21st January, 2026
Pronounced on: 17th February, 2026
Uploaded on: 17th February, 2026
ASIF @ NAEEM .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sarthak Maggon, Advocate.
versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Tiwari, CGSC with Ms.
Ayushi Srivastava, Mr. Ayush
Tanwar, Mr. Kushagra Malik & Mr.
Arpan Narwal, Advocates for UOI.
Ms. Kamakshi Sehgal, Advocate for
Union of India.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV NARULA, J.:
1. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, assails the
decision of the Sentence Review Board (“SRB”) recorded in the minutes of
its meeting dated 30th July, 2025, declining the Petitioner’s request for
premature release. The Petitioner also challenges the consequential
approval/communication issued on behalf of the Government of NCT of
Delhi founded on those minutes.
2. The Petitioner is a Bangladesh national. He stands convicted in FIR
No. 284/2004, at P.S. Mansarovar Park, Delhi. By judgment dated 25thSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH W.P.(CRL) 4309/2025 Page 1 of 12
Signing Date:17.02.2026
19:12:43
January, 2010, the Trial Court convicted him for offences including Sections
396/449 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC“),
besides other charges.
3. In appeal, the Division Bench, by judgment dated 19th February, 2014,
affirmed the conviction under Sections 396/449 read with Section 34 IPC,
while acquitting the Petitioner of the charges under Section 412 IPC and
Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The challenge carried further did not
succeed.
4. The Petitioner was repatriated to Bangladesh to serve the remainder of
the sentence on 1st December, 2021. The record placed before this Court
includes the commutation roll from the receiving State describing his
conduct in custody as satisfactory and law-abiding. As per the commutation
roll, the Petitioner had undergone 21 years, 5 months and 7 days of actual
incarceration as on 18th January, 2026, and 27 years, 1 month and 12 days
with remission.
5. Earlier, the SRB had declined the Petitioner’s request for premature
release in 2024. The Petitioner approached this Court. By judgment dated
23rd May, 2025, the rejection was set-aside and the SRB was directed to
reconsider the case strictly in accordance with the applicable policy dated
16th July, 2004 and the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, by passing a reasoned
decision within the stipulated time. The minutes dated 30 th July, 2025
represent the decision taken upon such reconsideration. The same read as
follows:
“8.1 : The Case of Asif Naeem Sb Sh. Abdul Rub Munshi-(Age-41 Yrs.)
(Bangladesh National)- Item No. 2
(i) Background: This case has been put up in compliance to the order dated
23.05.2025, passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, in W. P. (Cr1.) No.Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH W.P.(CRL) 4309/2025 Page 2 of 12
Signing Date:17.02.2026
19:12:43
1/2025 in the matter of Asif Alias Naeem Versus State ofNCT of Delhi and
Anr.
(ii) Eligibility conditions: Imprisonment for 20 years including remissions
but not less than 14 years of actual imprisonment. This case has been
considered under the policy/order dated 16.07.2004 issued by the Govt. of
NCT of Delhi i.e. policy that was existing on the date of conviction.
(iii) Sentence details: Asif @ Naeem Sb Sh. Abdul Rub Munshi is
undergoing life imprisonment in case FIR No. 284/2004, U/S
396/449/412/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act, P.S. M. S. Park, Delhi for
committing murder of a person during dacoity. As on 31.12.2023, the
convict has undergone imprisonment of 19 years, 11 months & 24 days in
actual and 24 years, 04 months & 18 days with remission. The said
undergone period of imprisonment is taken from letter dated 02.01.2024
received from Bangladesh High Commission, New Delhi.
(iv) Deliberation: The Board considered the reports/records received and
took into account all the facts and circumstances of the case. As per latest
police report dated 18.06.2025, the address E-364, New Seemapuri was
checked and no such person or family found residing at this address and the
premature release is opposed/not recommended.
Considering all the facts, circumstances under which the offence was
committed, nature, gravity and perversity of the crime, age of the convict,
the Special Commissioner of Police (Crime), Delhi during the meeting
concluded that the propensity to commit similar crime again by the convict
cannot be ruled out. The Director, Social Welfare Department, Delhi has
also not supported his premature release during the meeting.
(v) Recommendation: The Board is of the view that with the given back
drop of the crime committed, it might not be in the interest of the society at
large to release such a convict who had shaken the conscience of the society
at large by doing such a heinous crime. Therefore, the Board after detailed
deliberation and discussion, as out-lined above, unanimously decided to
REJECT premature release of convict Asif @ Naeem Sb Sh. Abdul Rub
Munshi at this stage.”
The governing framework
6. The applicable framework is not a matter of discretion in the abstract.
The executive may have the power to grant or refuse remission or premature
release, but once a policy and rules structure the field, the decision must be
taken within that framework and for reasons that the policy recognizes. The
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH W.P.(CRL) 4309/2025 Page 3 of 12
Signing Date:17.02.2026
19:12:43
Supreme Court has also emphasized that, ordinarily, the relevant policy for
consideration is the one applicable as per the governing rules for the class of
prisoners and, where a policy itself links applicability to the date of
conviction, the decision-maker cannot depart from it without legal basis.1
7. The Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 (Chapter XX on premature release)
articulate the controlling objective in Rule 1244, namely, reformation and
rehabilitation with societal protection, and place conduct and performance
during incarceration at the heart of the evaluative exercise.
8. The 2004 policy, requires a comprehensive consideration covering (i)
family and social background, (ii) the offence and circumstances of its
commission, (iii) prison conduct, (iv) conduct on parole/furlough if any, (v)
health, and (vi) a recommendation supported by reasons.
9. Clause 3.1 of the 2004 Policy structures the eligibility timelines for
premature release. In cases falling within the capital category, premature
release is considered after completion of the prescribed period of
incarceration inclusive of remission, subject to a minimum of 14 years’
actual imprisonment. In the category of heinous offences, including the
offence for which the Petitioner stands convicted, consideration arises only
after completion of 20 years including remission; however, even in such
cases, the policy clarifies that “the period of incarceration inclusive of
remission should not exceed 25 years.”
10. It is also important to keep the statutory context in view. The
“appropriate Government” retains the power to suspend or remit sentences.
Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, that power is in
1
Joseph v. State of Kerala 2023 SCC Online SC 1211.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH W.P.(CRL) 4309/2025 Page 4 of 12
Signing Date:17.02.2026
19:12:43
Section 473 (pari materia with Section 432 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973).
11. Repatriation does not dilute that power. Section 11 of the Repatriation
of Prisoners Act, 2003 expressly provides that transfer of a prisoner does not
affect the power of the Government to suspend, remit or commute the
sentence in accordance with law. The implementation route may require
inter-governmental communication. The legal competence to take the
remission decision remains intact.
The Record before the Court
12. The State has adopted, as its response in the present petition, the
affidavit and pleadings earlier filed in W.P.(CRL) 1/2025. The matter is
examined on the basis of the writ record, that affidavit, and the status reports
subsequently called for.
13. The status report filed by the Government of NCT of Delhi encloses
the commutation roll received from the Senior Superintendent of the
receiving jail in Bangladesh. The Union of India has placed on record the
correspondence exchanged between the Ministry of Home Affairs and the
Ministry of External Affairs, including documentation received through
official channels in relation to the Petitioner’s repatriation and incarceration.
The impugned decision
14. The minutes dated 30th July, 2025 proceed, in substance, on two
planks. First, the gravity of the offence and the “perversity” of the crime.
Second, an apprehension, stated in broad terms, that the propensity to
commit a similar crime cannot be ruled out.
15. Beyond describing the offence, the only factual input adverted to is a
police report stating that the address at E-364, New Seemapuri was checked,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH W.P.(CRL) 4309/2025 Page 5 of 12
Signing Date:17.02.2026
19:12:43
and no such person or family was found residing there. The minutes then
record that premature release is “opposed/not recommended” and conclude
that release “might not be in the interest of the society at large”.
16. The petition therefore raises a narrow, though important, question:
whether the SRB, while exercising discretion under the governing
framework, has undertaken the evaluative exercise mandated by the 2004
policy and the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, or whether the decision reflects a
mechanical rejection driven primarily by the label of the offence and a
conjectural assessment of future risk.
Scope of review and legal principles
17. The legal position admits of no dispute that no convict can demand
remission or premature release as a matter of right. However, once the
executive frames a policy and the prison rules prescribe a structured process,
the convict acquires a right to a fair, meaningful, and non-arbitrary
consideration under that framework. The discretion is broad, but it is not
unstructured. It is confined by the governing policy, the prison rules, and the
discipline of reasons.
18. The policy dated 16th July, 2004, makes two features explicit. First,
eligibility after the stipulated period of actual incarceration does not
translate into automatic release, and the SRB retains discretion. Second, the
discretion must be exercised by weighing the circumstances of the crime
together with other relevant factors, including whether the convict has lost
the potential for committing crime, the possibility of rehabilitation, and the
socio-economic condition of the family. The policy also requires a
comprehensive note dealing with the family and social background, the
circumstances of the offence, prison conduct, and a reasoned
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH W.P.(CRL) 4309/2025 Page 6 of 12
Signing Date:17.02.2026
19:12:43
recommendation. Thus, eligibility triggers consideration. It does not
guarantee release. At the same time, the policy does not permit the SRB to
treat the label of the offence as a veto that makes the rest of the inquiry
redundant.
19. The Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 reinforce the same approach. Rule 1244
states that premature release is anchored in reformation, rehabilitation, and
reintegration, while ensuring protection of society, and it recognizes that
conduct and performance in prison bear directly on rehabilitative potential.
The Rules also contemplate that the SRB decision should be a speaking one,
and caution against treating the police view as determinative in isolation.
20. This insistence on reasons is not a cosmetic requirement. The
Supreme Court has repeatedly held that recording reasons is an essential
component of fairness in administrative and quasi-judicial decision-making.
A conclusion without an intelligible rationale disables scrutiny and breeds
arbitrariness. In matters of premature release, the relevant considerations,
such as the circumstances of the offence, antecedents, conduct in custody,
and the likelihood of reoffending, are not mere formalities to be
mechanically recorded. They constitute the foundation of the evaluative
exercise.
21. The same discipline appears in Satish @ Sabbe v. State of Uttar
Pradesh,2 where the Supreme Court cautioned against mechanical refusals
that ignore statutory or policy criteria and recognized that a constitutional
court may step in where the executive repeatedly fails to discharge its
obligation of meaningful consideration.
2
2021 14 SCC 580.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH W.P.(CRL) 4309/2025 Page 7 of 12
Signing Date:17.02.2026
19:12:43
22. The gravity of the offence, even when undeniable, cannot become the
single note refrain that drowns out every other mandatory consideration. In
Satish @ Sabbe, the Supreme Court cautioned that “gravity of the original
crime cannot be the sole basis” for refusing premature release, and that any
assessment of future criminality must be grounded in antecedents and
conduct during incarceration, rather than vague apprehensions.
Analysis and findings
23. Tested on the above touchstones, the impugned minutes do not
withstand scrutiny. The SRB has recited the nature of the offence and then
moved, in a single leap, to a conclusion on public interest. What is missing
is the bridge. There is no discussion of the Petitioner’s custodial record, no
evaluation of rehabilitative indicators, no engagement with the prison
recommendation contained in the commutation role, and no attempt to
explain why the long and unbroken incarceration, coupled with satisfactory
prison conduct, does not mitigate the perceived risk.
24. The formulation that “propensity to commit similar crime again…
cannot be ruled out” is, a bare assertion. It is unsupported by any
antecedents, any adverse prison material, any adverse parole or furlough
history (none exists), or any behavioural warning signs recorded by prison
authorities. The assessment of future risk, if it is to be adverse, must be
reasoned and evidence-linked. A conclusion stated as a possibility is not a
reason.
25. The police input relied upon fares no better. The report that the Delhi
address could not be verified is not an assessment of risk. It is, at most, a
verification failure about an address in India. In the case of a repatriated
prisoner, the relevant inquiry is whether there exist a structured
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH W.P.(CRL) 4309/2025 Page 8 of 12
Signing Date:17.02.2026
19:12:43
rehabilitative pathway and social anchorage in the receiving State, because
that is where the prisoner will be released and reintegrated. On this, the
commutation role and the documents routed through official channels
provide a far more germane picture than an address check in Delhi.
26. The SRB has also treated “non-recommendation by police authority”
as a weighty adverse factor, without disclosing what, in substance, the police
apprehension is, and without undertaking the balancing exercise demanded
by the Rules. The Delhi Prison Rules caution against an approach where the
police opinion becomes the decisive factor. The decision must reflect a
collective and contextual weighing of all inputs.
27. The record, on the other hand, contains material that squarely attracts
the rehabilitative axis of the framework. The Petitioner has undergone well
beyond the threshold contemplated for consideration in serious categories
and has crossed the benchmark indicated under Clause 3.1 of the 2004
policy. As noted earlier, the commutation roll records 21 years, 5 months
and 7 days of actual incarceration and 27 years, 1 month and 12 days
including remission, with his conduct consistently marked satisfactory. The
social investigation report dated 16th December, 2021 likewise notes
satisfactory custodial conduct and no adverse material. There is no
indication of prison offences, violent behaviour, or any pattern suggesting
institutional misconduct.
28. The State is right in asserting that the offence is grave. That reality
does not evaporate with time. The policy itself recognizes the relevance of
the circumstances and nature of the crime. However, the policy and the
Rules also proceed on the premise that even serious offenders may, after
prolonged incarceration and demonstrated reform, become eligible for a
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH W.P.(CRL) 4309/2025 Page 9 of 12
Signing Date:17.02.2026
19:12:43
executive decision with due deliberation. The SRB’s function is to perform
that calibration. A decision that effectively stops at the caption “murder
during dacoity” and then adds a speculative fear of recidivism does not
amount to the calibrated assessment demanded by the governing framework.
29. The next question is whether a remand is the appropriate recourse. In
the facts and circumstances noted above, it is not. One remand has already
been granted. The reconsideration has returned with substantially the same
infirmity. A further remand would therefore serve little purpose other than
prolonging incarceration, while the record continues to show no cogent
material that answers the policy’s rehabilitative criteria in the negative.
When a statutory framework and a binding policy prescribe the manner in
which the power is to be exercised, the executive cannot reduce the exercise
to a formal ritual by repeating broad generalities and leaving the mandatory
considerations untouched. The impugned reconsideration does exactly that.
It reproduces the earlier defect, with the label of the “heinous offence” and a
speculative apprehension of future risk, without an evidence-linked
assessment of antecedents and prison conduct to deny the request. Satish @
Sabbe makes the position clear. Where authorities fail to discharge the
obligation of reasoned consideration despite judicial directions, a
constitutional court may step in and issue a writ of mandamus to secure
compliance, rather than consigning the prisoner to an endless cycle of
reconsiderations. Further, the gravity of the original crime, however serious,
cannot become the sole ground to refuse premature release once the policy
threshold is crossed. Any assessment of the likelihood of reoffending must
be grounded in material, including antecedents and conduct during
incarceration, and not in vague fears or unreasoned assertions. Zahid
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH W.P.(CRL) 4309/2025 Page 10 of 12
Signing Date:17.02.2026
19:12:43
Hussein v. State of W.B.,3 reiterates the same principle, cautioning that
conclusions about future criminality cannot rest on conjecture.
30. Considering the material placed before the Court, the Petitioner
satisfies the eligibility threshold for consideration under the applicable
framework, and there is no adverse material of conduct or antecedents which
would justify continued incarceration on the ground of future risk. The
SRB’s refusal is therefore unsustainable as an arbitrary exercise of
discretion, resting on conjecture and the gravity of the offence alone,
contrary to the policy and the Rules.
31. The repatriation arrangement does not stand in the way of relief. The
governing statute preserves the operation of the law relating to suspension,
remission and commutation, and the bilateral framework recognizes that the
power to grant remission or commutation vests with the transferring State.
The enforcement of the sentence may be carried out in the receiving State,
but the decision to remit the unexpired portion, once taken in accordance
with the applicable policy, is capable of being communicated through the
designated governmental channels for implementation.
32. The petition is accordingly allowed in the following terms:
(i) The minutes of the SRB meeting dated 30th July, 2025, insofar as they
reject the Petitioner’s request for premature release, are set aside, along with
any consequential approval/communication founded thereon.
(ii) The Petitioner is considered fit for premature release under the
applicable framework, on the basis of the material on record, including the
commutation roll reflecting satisfactory prison conduct.
3
(2001) 3 SCC 750.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH W.P.(CRL) 4309/2025 Page 11 of 12
Signing Date:17.02.2026
19:12:43
(iii) The Government of NCT of Delhi shall, within two weeks, process
the case for issuance of the consequential orders and shall, through the
Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of External Affairs,
communicate the decision to the concerned authorities in Bangladesh for
implementation in accordance with the bilateral arrangement.
(iv) The concerned jail authority in Bangladesh shall be informed
forthwith through official channels, and compliance shall be ensured without
avoidable delay.
33. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the concerned Department
and to the nodal prison authority for information and compliance.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
FEBRUARY 17, 2026
hc
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH W.P.(CRL) 4309/2025 Page 12 of 12
Signing Date:17.02.2026
19:12:43
