Reformed: Delhi High Court orders premature release of ex-Presidential bodyguard convicted in 2003 rape case

The Delhi High Court has ordered the release of a former Presidential House guard convicted in the infamous 2003 Buddha Jayanti Park gang rape case [Harpreet Singh v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi)]

In a judgment delivered on January 30, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna noted that the convict, Harpreet Singh, had spent over 21 years in jail and maintained good conduct throughout his imprisonment and his continued incarceration after more than two decades was unjustified under the reformative framework of criminal justice

He had demonstrated that the reformative purpose of his sentence had been fulfilled, observed the Court.

The High Court invoked “Kafkaesque” alienation concept to stress the constitutional limits on keeping a person in jail long after reform.

"While Kafka's protagonist was ultimately destroyed by the alienation of those who could not see past his shell, the Constitution of India, anchored in the reformative theory, forbids the State from condemning a prisoner to such eternal alienation, when the objective of correction has been achieved," said the Court.

Hence, it ordered immediate release of Singh.

The case stemmed from an incident in October 2003 at Buddha Jayanti Park near Rashtrapati Bhavan.

According to the prosecution, a 17-year-old Delhi University student and her companion were detained and robbed by four men. Two of the men later raped the girl while the others kept watch.

In 2009, a trial court sentenced two former members of the President’s Bodyguards, including the current petitioner, to life imprisonment for gang rape, while the other two accused were convicted of robbery and kidnapping and given fixed-term sentences.

The petitioner’s applications for premature release was rejected by Sentence Review Board (SRB) on February 23, 2024 and the same was approved by the Delhi Lieutenant Governor

Singh then approached the High Court by way of writ petition under Article 226.

The Court held that the seriousness of the original offence cannot operate as a permanent bar for release from prison.

“The gravity of an offence is a static, historical fact – it will never change, no matter how many decades pass. To allow the heinousness of a past act to act as a permanent bar to remission is to transform a life sentence into a retributive death by incarceration, rendering the State’s reformative machinery entirely redundant,” the Court observed.

The Court found that the SRB had not properly considered the petitioner’s behaviour in prison, his progress towards reform or the risk of committing offences.

This was despite positive reports in his favour from prison authorities, probation officers, and other agencies.

Thus, the Court criticised the SRB’s decisions.

“The Rejection Orders in the Petitioners are ‘pithily drafted, cursorily articulated proforma paragraphs’ taking a myopic view of only the gravity of offence, overlooking all other relevant considerations. Also, the reasoning process devolved into a ‘copy-paste’ exercise, with no other reason for rejection… It clearly reflects non-application of mind,” the judge said.

The judgment also noted that the SRB had effectively gone back to the original conviction instead of evaluating the individual’s present condition.

“The SRB’s reasoning is not an assessment of a human being, but a reassessment of the original trial. It amounts to labelling the convict based on a 22-year-old FIR, while completely ignoring the State’s own findings that he has successfully reformed,” observed the Court.

The Court further noted that the petitioner’s records showed no adverse entries in jail, completion of vocational and reformative programs, and multiple parole and furlough releases without any violations.

In an earlier meeting, the SRB itself had recorded that his likelihood of reoffending was “Nil.”

Yet, his applications were repeatedly rejected mainly because of the nature of the original offence.

The Court held that keeping someone in jail after they have shown clear reform no longer serves a valid purpose.

“To continue to judge him solely by his 2003 offence while ignoring this unblemished 21-year resume of transformation, is to reject the very possibility of human change that the reformative theory of punishment is built upon.”

It also made it clear that when a prisoner has served the maximum time under remission rules but faces repeated, arbitrary rejections, the High Court can step in directly to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

Hence, it allowed the petition and ordered immediate release of Singh.

The petitioner was represented by advocates Sumer Singh Boparai, Sirhaan Seth, Surya Pratap Singh, Abhilash Kumar Pathak and Piyush Kumar.

The State was represented by advocate Amol Sinha, ASC, along with advocates Kshitiz Garg, Ashvini Kumar and Nitish Dhawan.

SI Manoj Kumar of the Chanakyapuri Police Station also appeared for the State.

[Read Judgment]