SC Stays Release of 1993 Kolkata Blast Convict, Calls Act Akin to Terrorism
The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed a Delhi High Court order that had directed the release of Rashid Khan, a convict in the March 1993 Kolkata blast case. The blast killed 69 people and injured over 100, occurring just four days after the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts. The court described the act as 'akin to terrorism.'
The West Bengal government appealed against the High Court's June 5 judgment, which had allowed Khan's premature release on the grounds of reformation. Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, arguing for the state, told a bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Sanjeev Sachdeva that the mastermind of a heinous terrorism-related crime causing large-scale loss of life did not deserve release.
The bench directed Khan to file his response to the state's appeal by July 28, the next hearing date, and said, 'In the meanwhile, the operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed.'
Senior advocate M.R. Shamshad, representing Khan, argued that a co-convict also sentenced to life had been granted remission and released in 2014. He noted that Khan had already served 33 years in prison, with periodic family visits that he adhered to strictly. 'His conduct in prison has been excellent, and now he is suffering from various ailments though his mental faculties remain intact,' Shamshad added.
The bench countered that there cannot be two masterminds in the same case. Khan was convicted under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act and sentenced to life in 2001. The explosion occurred when explosives stored by Khan, a 'satta' operator close to the then ruling party in West Bengal, detonated, destroying two buildings.
The Delhi High Court's Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, in her June 5 order, had stated: 'A humane approach ought to be taken, because the most crucial and germane aspect amongst the various theories for punishment which are propounded, is the effect of reformation of the accused as part of retribution.' The Supreme Court's stay has put that order on hold pending further hearing.
