Bayem Victor v. State Gnct of Delhi

O R D E R %

25.08.2026

¶1The Petition is for the following reliefs "a) Allow the present Writ Petition and direct the Competent Authority to consider name of the Petitioner for pre-mature release in the upcoming Sentence Review Board Meeting."

¶2Let the respondent Authority to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶3The respondent shall consider the case of the petitioner strictly in view of the decision in the case of Ramesh v. State (NCT of Delhi),1. 1 2026:DHC:6455. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. Recently, this Court in Ramesh v. State (NCT of Delhi),2 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; 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.

¶4The 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.

¶5Importantly, 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 2 2026:DHC:6455. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. 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.

¶6Let the case of the petitioner be considered in the forthcoming meeting of the Sentence Review Board and the decision be communicated to the petitioner.

¶7With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J AUGUST 25, 2026 aks 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. DLHC010401602026 + W.P.(CRL) 2602/2026 BAYEM VICTOR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Priyal Bhardwaj and Mr. Chetan Bhardwaj, Advocates. versus STATE GNCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC for State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV