‘Conduct indicates reformation’: Delhi High Court sets aside board's decision denying premature release to 1993 plane hijack convict

Granting relief to Singh, the court said the reasoning provided by the SRB while rejecting Singh's application was inadequate

The Delhi High Court has set aside a decision of the sentence review board denying premature release to a man, convicted for hijacking an Indian Airlines flight with 192 passengers in 1993, saying that the decision has inadequate reasoning.

It said that petitioner Hari Singh''s conduct in jail indicated elements of reformation, as even over a long period of incarceration there was no record of any untoward incident.

Justice Sanjeev Narula remanded the matter to the sentence review board (SRB) for a fresh consideration and asked it to give its decision within eight weeks.

"It is evident that the impugned decision of the SRB suffers from inadequacy of reasoning and non-consideration of relevant materials, including judicial observations bearing upon the petitioner's conduct and reformation. Thus, the said decision cannot be sustained," the high court said in its July 7 order.

The court noted that convict Hari Singh's conduct in jail indicated elements of reformation.

Singh was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the offences under Section 4 of the Anti-Hijacking Act and Sections 353, 365 and 506(II) of the Indian Penal Code.

He was convicted by the trial court in 2001. His appeal was rejected by the high court in 2011, and the special leave petition was withdrawn from the Supreme Court.

It was his case that his name was periodically taken up for consideration of premature release by the SRB but it was consistently rejected on the ground of gravity of the offence.

As of May 12, Singh had undergone 17 years, 11 months and six days of actual imprisonment and 22 years, six months and 20 days of total imprisonment, including remission.

Granting relief to Singh, the court said the reasoning provided by the SRB while rejecting Singh's application was inadequate and did not meet the requisite standards of reasonable justification necessary for an order passed by an executive authority under administrative mandate.

"Petitioner's conduct in jail does indicate elements of reformation, as even over a long period of incarceration (almost 18 years of actual imprisonment), there is no record of any untoward incident which would indicate that the petitioner still harbours elements of criminality," the court said.

It set aside the latest minutes of the SRB meeting of April 24 this year and asked the board to reconsider the case.

With inputs from ANI