Supreme Court stays early release of Bowbazar blast convict
The High Court hearing was based on a special leave application filed by the West Bengal government. File Image | Photo credit: Shashi Shekhar Kashyap
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (June 23, 2026) stayed the Delhi High Court’s decision to grant early release to a 78-year-old man serving a life sentence in the 1993 Bowbazar blast case that killed 69 in Kolkata.
A bench of PK Mishra and Sanjeev Sachdeva orally observed that Rashid Khan’s actions amounted to “almost terrorist activity” and he played the “role of a mastermind”.
Also read | The seriousness of the crime must not dictate the decision on early release of the convicted: Supreme Court
The apex court’s hearing was based on a special leave application filed by the West Bengal government, represented by Additional Attorney General SV Raju, protesting against the Supreme Court’s apparently “reformative” approach in a case involving serious crimes that led to multiple deaths of innocent people.
When Mr Khan’s counsel said the co-accused had secured a pardon in 2014, Justice Sachdeva said “people have different roles” and “his (Khan’s) role is that of a mastermind”.
Accepting the apex court’s notice of the petition filed by the state, the defense counsel argued that Khan’s health was poor. He was imprisoned for about 33 years and his behavior throughout was excellent. He reserved the case for further discussion at the beginning of July.
The state had previously pointed out that the Supreme Court had granted Khan a pardon on June 5 despite repeated rejections by the State Sentencing Review Board of his request for early release.
Khan was convicted on 31 August 2001 of offenses under the Indian Penal Code, the Explosives Act and the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) in connection with the 16 March 1993 blasts that hit a densely populated area of Kolkata. He has remained behind bars since his arrest in 1993.
The Supreme Court ordered Khan’s early release, ruling that the jail time he had already served was sufficient to meet the objectives of punishment and deterrence.
Published – 23 June 2026 4:00 PM IST