Vikas Sidhu v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr

O R D E R %

19.08.2026

¶1The present petition is for the following reliefs: a. Issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other writ, order or direction for setting aside the Order dated 27.11.2025 passed by the Respondent No.1 approving the Minutes of Meeting dated 16.10.2025 in bearing F.No.18/62/25/HG/Prisons/3651-3652, whereby premature release of the Petitioner was rejected; b. Issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other writ, order, or direction for premature release of the Petitioner forthwith in FIR No. 34/2003, P.S. Ashok Vihar, Delhi; and c. Pass such other and further orders/directions, as may be required in the interest of justice, and is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

¶2The petitioner stands convicted under Sections 120-B/364-A/302/201/420/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. He has been in jail since 05.05.2003 and as on the date of filing of the status report I.e.,

30.01.2026, the petitioner had served actual custody of 20 years 06 months 04 days and 21 days remission. In terms of the Order bearing No. F-18/5/94/Home (Genl) dated 16.07.2004 issued by the Lieutenant Governor of the NCT of Delhi ("2004 Guidelines"), the petitioner is eligible for early release.

¶3Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Impugned Order dated 16.10.2025 is erroneous and unsustainable. It is de hors settled principles of law governing the adjudication of a premature release application of a given convict. He further states that the petitioner has been granted interim bail 8 times, parole 3 times and furlough 6 times, which ought to imbue a favourable consideration of the petitioner. The status report would also indicate that the petitioner's conduct during incarceration has been found to be satisfactory.

¶4Recently, this Court in Ramesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), after relying upon a catena of decisions culled out the principles which are to apply while adjudicating upon the application of a convict for premature release. A three-fold criterion was set out by the Court, it being—first, the propensity of a convict to commit an offence again, which is to be adjudicated on the basis of the convict's jail conduct as well as his antecedents. Baseless and unsubstantiated apprehension of victims or witnesses is not relevant for determining likelihood to commit a crime after release. The assessment is to be made on the basis of convict's antecedents and conduct while in jail; The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. second, the purpose which would be served by the continued confinement of the convict in prison, including whether the convict continues to pose a danger to the society; and third, the socio-economic condition of the convict's family arising from his continued incarceration.

¶5The Court found the following factors/considerations to be irrelevant for the purposes of adjudicating upon an early/pre-mature release of a given convict—first, gravity of the original offence and the length of the sentence imposed are not by themselves relevant; second, the fact that "wrong" or "negative" message would go out to society is not a relevant factor; and third, a mere opposition by the police authorities to premature release is irrelevant unless it is supported by cogent material. Premature release also cannot be denied on the sole ground that the police have not recommended release.

¶6Importantly, the following, inter alia, were considered as material/relevant factors to determine the question of early/premature release of a given convict—first, post-conviction conduct of the convict is the principal indicator to assess desirability of premature rule. In the absence of contemporary and cogent evidence to the contrary, sustained good conduct in custody cannot be ignored or discounted; and second, where a convict has transitioned through the incarceration process and has, after due consideration, been moved from regular prison to a semi-open prison and thereafter to an open prison, with a good 'report card' through those stages, such progression is a critical factor that ought to imbue any assessment of premature release.

¶7The material portion of the Impugned Minutes reads as under: "The Board after considering all the facts as deliberated above came The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. to the conclusion that it may not be in the interest of the society at large to release such a convict who has committed crime with premeditation and in collaboration of co-convicts. In certain cases considering the crime so committed, maintaining good conduct in prison cannot be the sole barometer for recommending the premature release. Hence, the Board after detailed deliberation and discussion, as out-lined above, unanimously decided to REJECT premature release of convict Vikas Sidhu S/o Sh. Rattan Lal at this stage."

¶8A perusal of the aforenoted would indicate that premature release has been denied on the grounds of the convict had committed the offence with premeditation and in collaboration with co-convicts, making the crime serious in nature. It further held that in cases involving grave and premeditated offences, good conduct in prison alone cannot be the sole criterion for recommending premature release. Such reasoning is at the teeth of the decision of this Court in Ramesh (supra) and resultantly cannot be sustained.

¶9Bearing in mind the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Impugned Order deserves to be set aside and the case of the petitioner deserves to be reconsidered in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in Ramesh as well as the observations made hereinabove.

¶10Accordingly, the Impugned Order stands set aside, let the petitioner's application for early/premature release be reconsidered in the forthcoming meeting of the SRB. Thereafter, let the decision be communicated to the petitioner without any delay.

¶11It is clarified that the decision to be taken by the SRB must be in accordance with the principles laid by this Court in Ramesh as well as the observations made hereinabove. Any deviation from it, including providing reasons on irrelevant considerations of the kind detailed above, shall be The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. taken serious note of.

¶12With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of.

¶13If the grievance of the petitioner is not mitigated, he shall be at liberty to file a fresh petition.

¶14Copy of the order be sent to the Jail Authority. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J AUGUST 19, 2026/P/ksr The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC011074362025 + W.P.(CRL) 4328/2025 & CRL.M.A. 38952/2025 VIKAS SIDHU .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Vrinda Bhandariand and Ms. Pragya Barsaiyan, Advs. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr.Alok Sharma and Ms.Pavitra Dixit, Adv. for Mr.YasirRauf Ansari, ASC for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV