holistic evaluation of the other mandatory considerations under the 2004 policy and the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018. There is no substantive discussion on the Petitioner’s conduct during incarceration, the absence of prior criminal antecedents, or the rehabilitative potential of a convict who has served over 20 years in actual custody. Nor does the SRB provide any cogent basis for concluding that the Petitioner poses a continuing threat to society. The apprehension of future criminality, as expressed in the impugned minutes, remains an unsupported generalisation, falling short of the reasoned assessment required under the governing legal framework. 12. A striking feature that emerges from the record is the Social Investigation Report dated 16th December, 2021, prepared by the Prison Welfare Officer, which offers a detailed and favourable assessment of the Petitioner’s background, conduct, and reformative potential. The report specifically notes that, based on the Bone Age Report dated 5th March, 2013 (Hospital Registration No. 94868) issued by a panel of specialists at Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, the Petitioner was estimated to be between 22 to 25 years old as of that date. When back-calculated, this places the Petitioner’s age at approximately 10 to 13 years at the time of the incident, which occurred on the intervening night of 5th -6th August, 2004. The report also records that the Petitioner has undergone over 16 years of actual incarceration and more than 20 years including remission, without ever availing parole or furlough. His conduct in jail was noted to be consistently satisfactory, and he was assessed to exhibit a reformative attitude. On this basis, and subject to verification of the Bone Age Report, the Welfare Officer recommended the Petitioner’s case as fit for premature release The report reads as follows:
