E-Paper
HC rejects petition of 1993 serial bombings convict seeking parole
The Bombay High Court rejected the parole leave plea of Niyaz Ahmed Shaikh, a convict in the 1993 Mumbai serial bombings case, citing his conviction under TADA. Shaikh had applied for parole to take care of his ailing mother.
MUMBAI: The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay high court on Tuesday rejected the application filed by March 1993 Mumbai serial bombings case convict Niyaz Ahmed Shaikh, challenging rejection of his plea for parole leave. Shaikh had applied for parole claiming he wants to take care of his ailing 70-year-old mother. However, his application was rejected, as he is convicted under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), 1987.
The division bench of justice Mangesh Patil and justice Abhay Waghwase was informed by advocate Rupesh Jaiswal that Shaikh had been incarcerated for the last 29 years and with the inclusion of the remission period, he had completed 34 years and six months of imprisonment. The bench was informed that Shaikh’s mother was suffering from tuberculosis and hence, had applied for parole to the superintendent of Aurangabad Central Jail where he is lodged since his conviction in 2007.
The bench was further informed that after Shaikh had applied for parole, the divisional commissioner had rejected his application on August 1, 2022, and his appeal against the rejection was also dismissed on October 10, 2022. Aggrieved by the rejection he approached HC.
Additional public prosecutor OG Wattamwar for the police and prison authorities, opposed the petition and stated that Shaikh was convicted under the TADA, 1987 and was undergoing a life imprisonment. Wattamwar submitted that as per the notification of April 16, 2018, which amended the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, the petitioner was not eligible for parole.
He had further submitted that the prison authorities had also given an adverse report against the petitioner and hence, based on the amended Rule 4 (13) and (20) of the Prison Rules, there was nothing perverse against the rejection of his application and appeal.
Rule 4(13) stipulates that a convict, who is sentenced for offences such as terrorist crimes, mutiny against state, kidnapping for ransom (prisoners may be eligible for furlough after completion of stipulated sentence in the respective section) who in the opinion of police/prison authorities are likely to jump furlough.
After hearing the submissions, the court dismissed the petition. “Needless to state that statutory bar being mandatory and having force of law, even in our considered opinion, it should prevail. Thus, in our considered opinion, rejection of application of the petitioner herein, on the grounds spelt out in the impugned orders, more particularly in the light of adverse Police report and the amended provision under Rule 4(13), cannot be faulted with.”
Shaikh was held guilty of conspiracy in the 1993 Mumbai bomb blasts case. He was also found guilty of obtaining training in Pakistan and attending conspiracy meeting at the residence of co-accused. Besides, he was held guilty of surveying Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai building, a potential target for the blasts, along with prime accused Tiger Memon. He was convicted by the special TADA court in June 2007.
