Cal HC division bench ‘no’ to Bowbazar blast accused’s release
Times of India | 23 September 2025The division bench, however, asked the board to reconsider his appeal.
The division bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Md Shabbar Rashidi clarified that while the writ court can see if the state authorities have considered everything laid out in rules when rejecting a plea for remission, it cannot "reappreciate the evidence and substitute the decision".
"The decision of the review board contains reasons. The view taken by it is plausible and cannot be said to be unreasonable, arbitrary, or in colourable exercise of powers...
In this case, the decision-making process cannot be faulted," the bench held, while dismissing the single judge's direction to authorities to release Khalid.
Even though the superintendent of Midnapore Central Correctional Home and chief probation and after care officer agreed to his release, Kolkata Police expressed apprehension that he would engage in criminal activities, which could result in serious law and order problems.
The KP clarified that Khalid was a close associate of the co-accused Rashid Khan, who was also sentenced to life.
KP went on to state that Khalid indulged in all sorts of criminal activities as per instructions of Rashid in order to establish himself as ‘terror in the locality.'
A bomb explosion occurred on March 16, 1993, in the Bowbazar area, in which 70 persons died and many others were injured. Khalid, as an accused, was convicted under the TADA in 2001.
He was arrested in 1993 and has been behind the bars for the past 32 years.
Khalid is now 60-year-old, is diabetic, and needs medical care, his counsel told the division bench.
His counsel's defence was that when considering such an application, the state is supposed to consider "antecedent, conduct in the prison and that the person if released is likely to abstain from crime and lead a peaceful life or not." It was contended that, even in a crime of the nature as that involving the assassination of the former PM, remittance was granted.
"A convict cannot claim remission as a matter of right. However, a convict can claim consideration of his prayer for remission in accordance with the law governing the subject," it was noted in the judgment.
