Supreme Court To Hear West Bengal's Plea Against Premature Release Of 1993 Bowbazar Blast TADA Convict

The matter was mentioned before a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana.

Counsel appearing for the State submitted that the State Sentence Review Board (SSRB) had recommended against Khan's release and sought urgent listing of the appeal against the Delhi High Court's order.

Accepting the request, the Bench agreed to list the matter for hearing on Monday, i.e. June 22.

The challenge arises from a June 5 judgment of the Delhi High Court, which ordered the immediate release of the 77-year-old convict, holding that continued incarceration of a demonstrably reformed prisoner after over three decades served no useful purpose and that the reformative approach to punishment must prevail over retribution.

Khan was arrested on March 3, 1993 and was subsequently convicted by the Designated TADA Court in Kolkata on August 31, 2001 under Sections 120B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, provisions of the Explosive Substances Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA). He was sentenced to life imprisonment, and his conviction was later upheld by the Supreme Court.

The Bowbazar blast occurred on March 16, 1993, just days after the Mumbai serial blasts. According to records, a massive cache of explosives allegedly stockpiled by local don Rashid Khan exploded in Kolkata's Bowbazar area, killing 69 people and destroying several residential buildings.

In its June 5 judgment, the Delhi High Court observed that reformation is the dominant objective of punishment and that every effort should be made to transform a convicted prisoner during incarceration. "It has been held that reformation should be the dominant objective of a punishment and during incarceration, every effort should be made to recreate the good man out of a convicted prisoner," the High Court observed.

The Court had further held that where a co-convict has already been granted remission and the convict seeking premature release demonstrates established individual reformation, the gravity of the offence alone cannot justify continued imprisonment.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna had observed: "Though in the matter of remission, no parity can be claimed for remission as individual conduct has to be seen, but this fact is significant, in the context of the gravity of offence. If for the same offence, co-convict could be granted remission, gravity of offence cannot be a ground to deny the benefit to the Petitioner, if he satisfies all the criteria."

The High Court had noted that Khan's co-convict, Pannalal Jaysoara, had already been granted premature release in March 2014.

The judgment had also scrutinised the actions of the State Sentence Review Board. In its 56th meeting held on March 25, 2015, the SSRB had recommended Khan's premature release after considering reports relating to his conduct, age, rehabilitation prospects and prison record. However, the recommendation was not implemented due to the Supreme Court's interim order in Union of India v. V. Sriharan concerning remission of TADA convicts.

Subsequently, the SSRB reversed its earlier recommendation in 2017 and again in 2018, citing the gravity of the offence and societal impact.

The High Court had held that the Board's reversal lacked any factual basis, observing: "Though the State Remission Board had recommended remission of the Petitioner in its Meeting on 25.03.2015, it got caught in the legal rigmarole of the jurisdiction being of State or Centre, leading to a change of heart and subsequent denial of Remission. There were no change of circumstances, rather it was progressing age; despite which the remission was thereafter, denied without any basis."

The Court had further noted that Khan's prison conduct had been consistently described as "very very good" and that he had successfully completed multiple paroles without any breach. At 77 years of age, he was also suffering from several ailments, including diabetes, hypertension and cataract. Concluding that there was "very low likelihood of the recurrence of offence," the Delhi High Court had ordered his immediate release. West Bengal has now moved the Supreme Court seeking reversal of that order.