In a significant judicial development, the Calcutta High Court has set aside a single bench order that had granted premature release to a convict serving a life sentence in connection with the 1993 Bowbazar bomb blast case. The division bench, comprising Justices Harish Tandon and Prasenjit Biswas, ruled on Monday that the earlier order lacked sufficient legal justification and failed to consider the gravity of the offence and procedural lapses in the remission process.
The convict, who was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1997 under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), had been granted early release by a single judge in 2024 on grounds of good conduct and completion of over 26 years in custody. However, the state government challenged the order, citing procedural irregularities and public safety concerns.
The division bench observed that the single bench had not adequately examined the recommendations of the Sentence Review Board (SRB), nor had it considered the nature of the crime, which involved multiple fatalities and extensive damage to public property. The 1993 Bowbazar blast had claimed 69 lives and injured over 100, making it one of the deadliest terror incidents in West Bengal’s history.
Timeline of key events – Bowbazar blast case
| Year | Event Description | Outcome/Remarks |
|---|---|---|
| March 1993 | Bomb blast in Bowbazar, Kolkata | 69 killed, over 100 injured |
| 1997 | Convict sentenced to life under TADA | Life imprisonment awarded |
| 2024 | Single bench grants premature release | Based on conduct and time served |
| Sep 2025 | Division bench sets aside release order | State appeal upheld |
The High Court’s division bench emphasized that remission of sentence in terror-related cases must be approached with utmost caution and in strict adherence to legal norms. “The nature of the offence, its impact on society, and the convict’s role must be weighed against the principles of justice and public interest,” the bench stated.
The court also noted that the convict’s release had not been vetted by the SRB in accordance with the West Bengal Correctional Services Act, which mandates a multi-tier review before granting remission in serious offences. The state government argued that the convict’s release could set a dangerous precedent and undermine the deterrent value of life imprisonment in terror cases.
Legal parameters for premature release – West Bengal
| Criteria | Requirement under law | Status in this case |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum sentence served | 14 years (life imprisonment) | 26 years completed |
| SRB recommendation | Mandatory for serious offences | Not adequately considered |
| Nature of offence | Must not be heinous or terror-related | TADA conviction – terror case |
| Conduct in custody | Good conduct required | Satisfied |
| Public interest and safety | Must be ensured | Questionable due to gravity |
Legal experts have welcomed the division bench’s decision, calling it a reaffirmation of judicial prudence in cases involving national security. “Premature release is not an automatic right. It must pass through rigorous legal scrutiny, especially in cases involving terrorism,” said senior advocate Anirban Mitra.
The convict’s counsel argued that the release was justified under Article 161 of the Constitution, which empowers the Governor to grant clemency. However, the court clarified that judicial orders must align with statutory procedures and cannot override mandatory safeguards.
The division bench also directed the state to strengthen its review mechanisms and ensure that future remission cases are processed with transparency and due diligence. The convict will remain in custody pending any further appeal or constitutional remedy.
Impact of the verdict – legal and social implications
| Area of Impact | Description | Expected Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Judicial precedent | Clarifies remission norms in terror cases | Stricter scrutiny in future cases |
| Correctional administration | Reinforces role of SRB and legal review | Improved procedural compliance |
| Public sentiment | Addresses concerns over premature release | Restores faith in justice system |
| Victim families | Upholds accountability for heinous crimes | Emotional closure, legal validation |
| State policy | May lead to revision of remission guidelines | Policy overhaul likely |
The Bowbazar blast case continues to be a painful chapter in Kolkata’s history, with survivors and families of victims still seeking closure. Monday’s verdict is being seen as a step toward reinforcing the sanctity of justice and ensuring that legal leniency does not compromise public safety.
The Calcutta High Court’s decision also comes at a time when national debates around prison reforms, sentence remission, and judicial accountability are gaining momentum. As India balances rehabilitation with retribution, the judiciary’s role in safeguarding constitutional values remains paramount.
Disclaimer: This article is based on publicly available court proceedings, legal commentary, and government statements. It does not constitute legal advice or political endorsement. All quotes are attributed to public figures and institutions as per coverage. The content is intended for editorial and informational purposes only.
