The Bombay High Court dismissed 1993 Mumbai blasts convict Abu Salem’s plea for emergency parole to attend his brother’s funeral in Uttar Pradesh. The Court upheld the condition of a high-security police escort at Salem’s own cost, which he said he could not afford.
The Bombay High Court on Thursday refused to grant emergency parole to 1993 Mumbai serial blasts convict Abu Salem, who had approached the Court seeking permission to visit his native place in Uttar Pradesh to attend the funeral rites of his elder brother.
A Division Bench comprising Justices A S Gadkari and Shyam C Chandak held that there was no reason to interfere with the decision taken by the prison and police authorities and dismissed Salem’s plea after considering all relevant factors.
While examining the matter, the Court noted that the competent authorities had already permitted Salem to be released on parole, but only on the condition that he would be accompanied by a high-security police escort throughout the visit. The authorities had also made it clear that the entire cost of such police escort would have to be borne by Salem himself.
During the hearing, Salem informed the Court that he was not in a financial position to pay the escort charges. In view of this submission, the Court declined to grant him any relief and rejected the plea for emergency parole.
Appearing for the State, Additional Public Prosecutor Ashish Satpute submitted that the authorities had taken a balanced and well-reasoned decision after considering the extradition treaty obligations and the adverse police reports related to law and order concerns.
He further told the Court that the funeral rites which Salem wished to attend had already been completed, and therefore there was no immediate necessity for his presence.
The prosecutor also pointed out that arranging a high-security escort would involve substantial expenditure, which the State would initially have to incur if Salem was released.
On the other hand, Salem’s counsel, Advocate Farhana Shah, argued that the extradition arrangement with Portugal did not impose any restriction requiring Salem to be sent back to Portugal nor could it be used as a ground to deny his right to parole or furlough.
She also questioned the law and order concerns raised by the police, stating that the Uttar Pradesh police report did not contain any concrete or specific material to demonstrate how Salem’s visit would disturb public peace or create any serious security threat.
Shah further submitted that Salem has been in custody for about 23–25 years and had earlier been taken out of jail on three occasions for court proceedings without violating any conditions imposed upon him. She stressed that Salem was not seeking parole for any celebratory purpose, but only to perform his brother’s last rites, and reiterated that he could not afford the heavy cost of the police escort.
After hearing both sides, the Court took note of the imprisonment certificate showing that Salem had already spent over 23 years in custody. It also considered the affidavit filed by the Director General of Police highlighting the grave and serious nature of the offences for which Salem stands convicted, as well as the adverse police report warning that his presence in Uttar Pradesh could potentially disturb public peace and order.
The Bench observed that the authorities had already shown leniency by allowing parole with strict security conditions and found no justification to either relax those conditions or review the earlier orders. It concluded that the requirement of a high-security escort at Salem’s own cost was reasonable and lawful in the given circumstances.
Accordingly, the Court held that the petition lacked merit and dismissed it, thereby refusing to grant emergency parole to Abu Salem.
Case Title:
Abu Salem v. State of Maharashtra & Ors
Click Here to Read More Reports On Gangster Abu Salem
