W.P.(CRL) 730/2023 Page 1 of 6
- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 30th July, 2025
Pronounced on: 22nd August, 2025 - W.P.(CRL) 730/2023
NAVIN AHUJA …..Petitioner
Through: Ms. Warisha Farasat and Ms. Suvarna
Swain, Advocates.
versus
OFFICE OF LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI, NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
…..Respondents
Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC (Crl.) with Mr.
Kshitiz Garg, Mr. Ashvini Kumar, Ms.
Chavi Lazarus, Mr. Nitish Dhawan
and Ms. Sanskriti Nimbekar,
Advocates for State.
SI Suresh Kumar, P.S. Kapashera,
Delhi.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV NARULA, J.:
- The present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
assails the minutes of meeting dated 14th December, 2022, of the Sentence
Review Board1
, and the letter dated 30th January, 2023 issued by Lt. Governor
of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, whereby the Petitioner’s request
for premature release was rejected. - The Petitioner is a convict serving life imprisonment for conviction
under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25 and 27 of
the Arms Act, 1959, in FIR No. 165/2005 registered at P.S. Kapashera for
1
“SRB/the board”
W.P.(CRL) 730/2023 Page 2 of 6
committing the murder of his wife and two minor children. The Trial Court
had convicted the Petitioner by judgment dated 22nd September, 2010, and by
order dated 6th October, 2010 had sentenced him to death, subject to
confirmation by this Court. In Criminal Appeal No. 1435/2010 and Death
Reference No. 4/2010, this Court, by judgment dated 20th November, 2012
partly allowed the appeal, commuting the death penalty to life imprisonment.
The Petitioner’s challenge to the said judgment was dismissed by the Supreme
Court on 16th March, 2015 upon refusal of special leave to appeal. A review
to the same was also dismissed on 14th January, 2020. - Upon becoming eligible for premature release as per the policy dated
16th July, 2004, issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi,
2
the case of the
Petitioner was considered and rejected on 14th December, 2022 which is
assailed 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. - At the outset, it must be noted that subsequent to the filing of the instant
petition, the Petitioner’s case for premature release was again considered and
rejected by the SRB on two occasions i.e. 23rd February, 2024 and 10th
December, 2024. Although their decisionsitself have not been challenged, the
grounds urged in the present petition are squarely applicable to the same.
Hence, with the consent of the parties, this Court has examined the matter
having regard to the latest rejection by the SRB of the Petitioner’s request for
premature release – i.e., as recorded in the minutes of meeting dated 10th
2
“2004 Policy”
W.P.(CRL) 730/2023 Page 3 of 6
December, 20243
:
“(37) Item No.-37; The case of Naveen Ahuja S/o Sh. Ashok Ahuja-
(Age-48 Yrs.)
(i) Background:
This case has been put up in compliance to the order dated 04.11.2024 in
W. P. (CRL) 730/2023 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the
matter of Navin Ahuja Vs. Office of Lt. Governor of Delhi, NCT
(ii) Eligibility conditions:
Only after undergoing imprisonment for 20 years including remission. This
case has been considered under the policy/order dated 16.07.2004 issued by
the Govt. of NC’T of Delhi i.e. policy that was existing on the date of
conviction.
(iii) Sentence details:
Naveen Ahuja S’o Sh. Ashok Ahuja is undergoing life imprisonment
(sentence of Death reduced to life imprisonment, which shall mean the rest
of his life in Death sentence No. 04/2010 and Criminal Appeal No.
1435/2010 by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on dated 20.11.2012) in case
FIR No. 165/2005, U/S 30 IPC & 25/27 A. Acts, P.S. Kapashera, Delhi for
murder of his wife & 02 minor children. As on 25.11.2024, the convict has
undergone imprisonment of 17 years, 11 months & 20 days in actual and 21
years, 04 months & 08 days with remission.
(iv) Recommendations: The Board considered the reports received from
Police and Social Welfare Departments and took into account all the facts
and circumstances of the case. The convict had committed such a brutal
crime by killing his wife and also two minor children. The Board noted that
such a desperate crime shaken the confidence of society and it may not be
in the interest of the society at large to Considering the gravity, perversity
and heinousness of the crime and the manner and circumstances ‘under
which this brutal crime was committed by the convict, un-satisfactory
conduct in jail in view of punishment, non-recommendation by police etc..
The Board after due deliberations unanimously recommended REJECTION
of premature release of convict Naveen Ahuja S/o Sh. Ashok Ahuja.” - 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
24
th March, 2025, the Petitioner has already undergone 17 years 11 months
and 21 days of actual incarceration and 21 years, 4 months, and 8 days
3
“the impugned minutes”
W.P.(CRL) 730/2023 Page 4 of 6
including remission. The Petitioner has been granted paroles and furloughs on
nearly 30 occasions during his incarceration, and his conduct during each of
these periods has been reported to be satisfactory. Moreover, the conduct of
the Petitioner inside the prison has also been found satisfactory, except for a
punishment dated 14th June, 2011. The nominal roll also reflects that no other
criminal cases are pending against the Petitioner. The Social investigation
report dated 26th June, 2024 mentions that the Petitioner’s case appears to be
fit for positive consideration by the SRB. The Probation Officer has also
opined that the Petitioner seems to have lost his potential for committing
crime and there is possibility of reclaiming him as a useful member of the
society. - Despite these positive indicators, the Board has rejected his request
citing, the gravity and brutality of the offence, the possible social impact of
the release of the convict and opposition by the police. Additionally, the board
has placed undue reliance on the Petitioner’s unsatisfactory conduct, on
account of a solitary punishment reflected in the nominal roll dated 14th June,
2011, which is more than a decade old. The nominal roll, on the contrary,
explicitly describes his conduct as satisfactory, and there is no record of any
further misconduct, either during his incarceration or while on parole or
furlough. - Significantly, the Board’s order does not meaningfully engage with the
reformative progress of the Petitioner, as documented in the Social
Investigation Report and the opinion of the Probation Officer, both of which
support a positive consideration of his case. These reports suggest that the
Petitioner has shown signs of rehabilitation and may be reintegrated into
society as a law-abiding citizen.
W.P.(CRL) 730/2023 Page 5 of 6 - In Santosh Kumar Singh v. State,4
this Court has recently examined
the approach adopted by the SRB in considering cases of premature release.
The approach was found lacking in terms of legal compliance, reasoning, and
adherence to the reformative framework envisaged under Rule 1244 of the
Delhi Prison Rules, 2018. It was, 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. Further, in the case of Rajo v. State
of Bihar,
5
the Supreme Court had also held that while the nature of the offence
and its societal impact are relevant considerations for the SRB, the same
cannot be the sole basis for continued incarceration. - Upon consideration of the submissions and perusal of the impugned
minutes, in light of the legal principles discussed above, this Court is of the
view that the reasons recorded in the impugned minutes suffer from the same
infirmities as those discussed in Santosh Kumar Singh. The decision appears
to be founded principally on the nature of the offence, societal impact and the
objection by the police, without meaningful consideration of the Petitioner’s
jail conduct, psychological assessments (if any), or any evidence indicating
the absence of reform. For these reasons, the Court finds the SRB’s decision
to be inadequately reasoned and contrary to the settled principles governing
premature release. - Accordingly, in view of the above and in light of the judgment of this
Court in Santosh Kumar Singh, the impugned SRB minutes dated 10th
December, 2024 are set aside qua the Petitioner. The matter is remanded back
4 2025:DHC:5138
5 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1068
W.P.(CRL) 730/2023 Page 6 of 6
to the SRB for reconsideration in accordance with law, keeping in mind the
principles, and observations made hereinabove, without being influenced by
the earlier decision. - The SRB shall convene a fresh meeting and pass a reasoned order
within a period of eight weeks from the date of this order. - The Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
AUGUST 22, 2025
ab