3 days ago
3
The West Bengal authorities connected Thursday (June 18, 2026) approached the Supreme Court challenging a Delhi High Court bid directing the merchandise of Rashid Khan, who is serving a beingness condemnation successful the 1993 Bowbazar blast lawsuit that near 69 radical dormant successful Kolkata. The State sought urgent involution from the apex tribunal to forestall his release.
The counsel representing the State sought urgent listing of the substance earlier a Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana, contending that the lawsuit progressive a “very superior offence” and should beryllium heard connected Monday (June 22). He besides pointed retired that the June 5 judgement of the High Court had erred successful directing Khan’s premature merchandise contempt the State Sentence Review Board (SSRB) having repeatedly declined his requests for remission.
During the hearing, the Chief Justice sought to cognize the play of incarceration already undergone by Khan. In response, the counsel for the State submitted that helium had spent astir 30 years successful prison, including the remission earned during his incarceration.
Also read: A caller lease of beingness nether the prima for decease enactment prisoners
The Chief Justice thereafter agreed to see the State’s petition for listing the matter.
Khan was convicted connected August 31, 2001, for offences nether the Indian Penal Code, the Explosives Act and the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) successful transportation with the March 16, 1993, blasts that struck a densely populated country of Kolkata. Since his apprehension successful 1993, helium has remained down bars.
Also read:For Delhi’s lifers, merchandise aft 14 yrs becomes a committee game
Seeking remission, the convict submitted that helium had spent much than 33 years successful custody and was present 77 years old. He relied connected his precocious property and assorted aesculapian conditions, including age-related ailments, successful enactment of his plea. He besides pointed retired that a co-convict, Pannalal Jaysowara, had been granted premature merchandise successful March 2014.
The tribunal was apprised that the State Sentence Review Board (SSRB) had recommended his merchandise connected March 25, 2015, but the proposal was subsequently reviewed and rejected successful September that year.
The State, however, opposed the plea, maintaining that Khan was the “mastermind” down the 1993 Bowbazar blasts and was not entitled to premature merchandise fixed the superior quality of the transgression and its interaction connected nationalist safety.
‘Reformative approach’
In a judgement delivered connected June 5, the High Court directed Khan’s premature release, holding that the play of incarceration already undergone was capable to conscionable the objectives of punishment and deterrence. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna noted that the SSRB had, successful 2015, recommended Khan’s merchandise aft assessing his behaviour and different applicable considerations.
The tribunal observed that the consequent determination to contradict remission was not founded connected immoderate caller worldly and mostly relied connected factors that had already been considered portion making the earlier recommendation.
While acknowledging that the offence had a important interaction connected society, the High Court emphasised that the remission model is premised connected the rule of reformation alternatively than retribution.
“There has been a reformative attack taken with respect to convicts successful cases of remission alternatively than a retributive approach. In specified a case, to support the petitioner successful jail, erstwhile helium has already spent implicit 33 years successful prison, whitethorn not beryllium fruitful successful immoderate manner. The punishment undergone by the petitioner has sufficiently fulfilled the deterrence sought to beryllium induced successful a convict who has committed specified sedate offence,” the tribunal said.
The High Court was besides unconvinced by the State’s statement that Khan remained a menace to society, noting his behaviour during parole, affirmative assessments by situation authorities and the lack of immoderate adverse reports regarding his behaviour.
