West Bengal challenges Delhi HC order to release 1993 Bowbazar blast convict in Supreme Court

The West Bengal government on Thursday approached the Supreme Court, challenging a Delhi High Court order that directed the release of Rashid Khan, a convict serving life imprisonment in the 1993 Bowbazar blast case. The blast in a densely populated area of Kolkata had resulted in 69 deaths. The state sought urgent intervention from the apex court to prevent his release.

Senior advocate representing the state asked for an urgent hearing before a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana, arguing that the case involved a 'very serious offence'. The state requested the matter be listed on Monday. The counsel pointed out that the High Court's June 5 judgment had erred in directing the convict's premature release, despite the State Sentence Review Board (SSRB) having repeatedly rejected his remission requests.

The Chief Justice inquired about the period of incarceration already served by Khan. The state's counsel replied that he had spent nearly 30 years in prison, including remission earned during his imprisonment. The Chief Justice then agreed to consider the state's request for listing the matter.

Rashid Khan was convicted on August 31, 2001, under the Indian Penal Code, the Explosives Act, and the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) for the March 16, 1993 blast. He had been in custody since his arrest in 1993.

In his plea for remission, Khan submitted that he had spent over 33 years in custody and was now 77 years old. He cited his advanced age and various medical conditions, including age-related ailments. He also noted that a co-convict, Pannalal Jaysowara, had been granted premature release in March 2014.

The court was informed that the SSRB had recommended his release on March 25, 2015, but the recommendation was reviewed and rejected later that year in September. The state opposed the plea, asserting that Khan was the 'mastermind' behind the blast and not entitled to premature release given the serious nature of the crime and its impact on public safety.

In its judgment on June 5, the Delhi High Court directed Khan's premature release, stating that the period of incarceration already undergone was sufficient to meet the objectives of punishment and deterrence. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna noted that the SSRB had in 2015 recommended his release after assessing his conduct and other considerations. The court observed that the subsequent denial of remission was not based on fresh material and largely relied on factors already considered in the earlier recommendation.

The High Court acknowledged the significant societal impact of the offence but emphasized that the remission framework is based on reformation rather than retribution. 'There has been a reformative approach taken with respect to convicts in cases of remission rather than a retributive approach. In such a case, to keep the petitioner in jail, when he has already spent over 33 years in prison, may not be fruitful in any manner. The punishment undergone by the petitioner has sufficiently fulfilled the deterrence sought to be induced in a convict who has committed such grave offence,' the court said.

The court also rejected the state's argument that Khan remained a threat to society, citing his conduct during parole, positive assessments by prison authorities, and the absence of any adverse reports regarding his behaviour.