Shashi Bhushan vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 30 July, 2025

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Shashi Bhushan vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 30 July, 2025

1. The present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assails the minutes of meeting dated 21st December, 2023,1 of the Sentence Review Board,2 whereby the Petitioner's request for premature release was rejected.

2. The Petitioner is a convict serving life imprisonment for conviction under Sections 302, 397 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in FIR 1 "the impugned minutes"

"SRB"

W.P.(CRL) 623/2025 Page 1 of 6

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 08/08/2025 at 22:25:34 No. 490/1992 registered at P.S. Hari Nagar for the robbery and murder of a woman. The robbery was committed at the residence of the Petitioner's employer with the aid of his co-accused and during the robbery a woman was killed. The prosecution established through medical and forensic evidence that the Petitioner was present at the scene of the crime. The conviction and sentence of the Petitioner was confirmed in the judgement of a division bench of this Court dated 17th May, 2018.

3. Upon becoming eligible for premature release as per the policy dated 16th July, 2004 issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi,3 the case of the Petitioner was considered and rejected by the SRB for the first time on 27th August, 2021. Thereafter, the Petitioner's case was again taken up for consideration of premature release and rejected by the SRB, on 30th June 2023 and 21st December, 2023. The Petitioner by way of the present petition assails the latest rejection dated 21st December, 2023, on the ground that it does not conform to the applicable legal framework, including the 2004 Policy and the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, and that the rejection is based on insufficient reasoning, without due consideration of relevant reformative indicators. The impugned minutes read as follows:

"ITEM NO. 07

SHASHI BHUSHAN BITTO S/O SH. ROSHAN LAL-AGE-53 YRS. This case has been put up in compliance to the order dated 06.09.2023 in Writ Petition(s) (Criminal) No(s). 397/2023 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Chetan & Ors. Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), wherein it was directed to the Respondent "to consider the cases of the petitioners for pre-mature release in accordance with law". Shashi Bhushan Bitto S/o Sh. Roshan Lal is undergoing life imprisonment in case FIR No. 490/1992, U/S 302/397/120-8/34 IPC, P.S. Hari Nagar, Delhi for committing murder of a woman during robbery.

"2004 Policy"

W.P.(CRL) 623/2025 Page 2 of 6

This is a digitally signed order.

Imprisonment of 16 years, 01 month & 07 days in actual and 17 years, 06 months and 05 days with remission. He has availed Parole Of times and Furlough 03 times. This case has been considered under Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 and also in view of guidelines-order dated 16.07.2004 issued by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi.

Conclusion:

The Board considered the reports received from Police and Social Welfare Departments for premature release of convict. All the facts and circumstances under which the serious criminal offence was committed were duly observed. It is seen that the convict committed the brutal crime in the house of his employer and killed the wife of his employer and looted the house. The convict betrayed trust of his employer. The police has opposed the premature release in the meeting; the possibility of his committing crime again cannot be ruled out. It has also been considered that he is already availing parole and furiough as per law and therefore his connection within the society remain rooted. Additionally, the Board also noticed that the co-accused of the convict are still absconding and not surrendered even after the dismissal of their criminal appeals. Thus, after considering the circumstances under which the offence was committed brutally, propensity of committing the crime again cannot be ruled out. The Board unanimously REJECTS premature release of convict Shashi Bhushan @ Bitto S/o Sh. Roshan Lal at this stage."

4. The Court has heard the submissions made by the Counsel for the Petitioner and has perused the police report, the social investigation report and the impugned minutes. It is further noted that as per the nominal roll dated 24th March, 2025, the Petitioner has already undergone 16 years 4 months and 28 days of actual incarceration and 17 years 6 months 13 days including remission. In the Social Investigation Report, the Probation Officer has opined that the Petitioner seems to have lost his potential for committing crime and may be claimed as a useful member of the society. The Commutation roll dated 13th October, 2023, also discloses that the Petitioner's release was recommended by both the Police and Social Welfare Department. It has also been noted that during his parole and furlough periods, the convict has been gainfully employed, and his employer has W.P.(CRL) 623/2025 Page 3 of 6 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 08/08/2025 at 22:25:34 described him as hardworking, dedicated, and responsible. Moreover, the conduct of the Petitioner inside the prison has also been stated to be satisfactory in the nominal roll.

5. Despite these positive indicators, the Board has rejected his application citing, inter alia, the gravity and brutality of the original offence and the fact that the co-accused are still absconding. In the opinion of this Court, the fact that the co-accused are absconding cannot be a valid ground to deny premature release to a convict who has independently served a substantial portion of his sentence and has also demonstrated reformation.

6. More importantly, the Board's reliance on the brutality of the offence appears to be misplaced in the present case. This Court notes that the Petitioner's conviction was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in Crl.A. 273/2016, decided on 17th May, 2018, wherein it was specifically observed:

"24. While it is true that there is no specific overt act attributed to the Appellant in the robbery and murder of the deceased, the presence of A-1 at the scene of crime stands conclusively established by the prosecution. The medical and the forensic evidence also linked the Appellant to the crime. This has been dealt with earlier. Therefore, the circumstance of arrest and recoveries should also be held to have been proved by the prosecution.

25. The conduct of the TIP in the jail was proved by the learned MM (PW- 19) who conducted it. At the TIP PWs 1, 4 and 27 identified A-

2. PW-4 also identified A-3. Despite extensive cross-examination nothing emerged in order to disbelieve her testimony. The recovery of the looted articles from the possession of the accused is an added factor corroborating the version of the PWs.

26. For all of the aforementioned reasons, the Court concurs with the trial Court that the evidence on record proves each link in the chain of circumstances. It points unerringly the guilt of the Appellant.

27. No ground has been made out for interference with the impugned judgment of the trial Court and the order on sentence. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds and surety bonds furnished by W.P.(CRL) 623/2025 Page 4 of 6 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 08/08/2025 at 22:25:34 the Appellant are cancelled. The Appellant is directed to surrender forthwith and any event not later than 31st May 2018. The trial Court record be returned forthwith along with a certified copy of this judgment."

[Emphasis Supplied] This clearly demonstrates that the Petitioner was not convicted on the basis of any direct act of violence or personal brutality, but rather on the strength of forensic evidence establishing his presence and involvement. The SRB, however, appears to have relied on the nature of the offence, without assessing the individual role attributed to the Petitioner at the time of conviction.

7. The Board's order also does not meaningfully engage with the reformative progress of the convict or the expert opinion of the Probation Officer. The conclusion that the convict may again commit crime is unsupported by any psychological or behavioural assessment, and appears to be speculative. This Court has recently considered an analogous case in Santosh Kumar Singh v. State,4 where the SRB's approach to considering premature release was found lacking in terms of legal compliance, reasoning, and application of the reformative framework mandated under Rule 1244 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018. The Court had, inter alia, emphasised that while the gravity of the offence may be a relevant factor, it cannot be the sole or overriding basis for rejection, and that the SRB is required to assess reformation, conduct, and likelihood of reintegration.

8. Having considered the submissions and perused the impugned minutes, this Court is of the view that the reasons recorded therein suffer from the same infirmities as those discussed in Santosh Kumar Singh 4 2025:DHC:5138 W.P.(CRL) 623/2025 Page 5 of 6 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 08/08/2025 at 22:25:34 (supra). The decision appears to be founded principally on the gravity of the offence, without reference to the Petitioner's jail conduct, psychological assessments (if any), or any evidence indicating the absence of reform.

9. Further, the Board's order does not appear to meaningfully engage with the reformative progress of the convict or the expert opinion of the Probation Officer. The conclusion that the convict may again commit crime is unsupported by any psychological or behavioural assessment, and appears to be speculative. For these reasons, the Court finds the SRB's decision to be inadequately reasoned and contrary to the settled principles governing premature release.

10. Accordingly, in view of the above and in light of the judgment of this Court in Santosh Kumar Singh (supra), the impugned SRB minutes dated 21st December, 2023 are set aside qua the Petitioner. The matter is remanded back to the SRB for reconsideration in accordance with law, keeping in mind the principles discussed hereinabove, without being influenced by the earlier decision.

11. The SRB shall convene a fresh meeting and pass a reasoned order within a period of eight weeks from the date of this order.

12. The Petitioner is disposed of in the above terms.

SANJEEV NARULA, J JULY 30, 2025 nk W.P.(CRL) 623/2025 Page 6 of 6 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 08/08/2025 at 22:25:34

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders