38.6c New Delhi, India, Tuesday, December 09, 2025
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Crime, Police And Law

Maharashtra HC Refuses Emergency Parole to four convicts in 1993 Mumbai Bomb Blast

By Lakshya Tewari      15 September, 2020 01:23 PM      0 Comments
Mumbai Bomb Blast

Maharashtra High Court refused to grant emergency parole to the 4 convicts in the 1993 Mumbai Bomb Blast. 

The Aurangabad bench of Mumbai High Court dismissed the plea of 4 convicts who were serving a life term in Harsool Central Prison in Aurangabad. The four convicts were Sardar Shahwali Khan, Mohammed Moin Faridulla Khan, Niyaz Ahmed, Shaikh Ali Shaikh Umer. The bench upheld the decision of the jail authorities. 

The bench consisted of Justice TV Nalawade and Justice. MG Sewilker. The four convicts requested the jail authorities for emergency parole in the light of the notification released by the state for decongestion of the jails due to the COVID-19 pandemic on May 8th, 2020. Their request was rejected by the jail authorities as they were convicted under provisions of TADA (Terrorist and Disruptive Activities) Act, 1987; a special statute; hence they were not entitled to the benefits and hence on July 7th, 2020 their request was denied. 

The bench said that the notification states that those convicted for economic offense, bank scams or under special acts, etc. are not entitled to emergency parole and TADA Act, 1987 comes under these categories, hence the bench didnt grant the emergency parole.

The government gave the notification for decongestion since the state jails are overcrowded and moreover 60 jails of Maharashtra have a 50% higher population than their actual capacity and the release of inmates may bring down the population nearer to the actual capacity.

The 1993 Mumbai bombings were a series of 13 bomb explosions that took place in Mumbai, on March 12th, 1993. The blasts resulted in 270 deaths; 1400 people were injured. After nearly 20 years of judicial proceedings, the Supreme Court gave its judgment on March 21st, 2015 giving a death sentence to Yakub Memon and life term to 10 others. However, Dawood Ibrahim and Tiger Memon; two other suspects of the bombings; have not yet been arrested or tried. The Maharashtra state government executed Yakub Memon on July 30th, 2015. Sardar Shahwali Khan, a civil contractor and aide of prime accused of Tiger Memon was convicted for conspiracy.   



Share this article:



Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS

sc-questions-precedent-on-contractual-bars-to-arbitration-claims-refers-bharat-drilling-to-larger-bench
Trending Judiciary
SC Questions Precedent on Contractual Bars to Arbitration Claims, Refers ‘Bharat Drilling’ to Larger Bench [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court refers the 2009 Bharat Drilling ruling to a larger bench, questioning its use in interpreting contractual bars on arbitration claims.

08 December, 2025 04:45 PM
sc-declines-urgent-relief-in-indigo-flight-cancellation-crisis-says-centre-dgca-already-acting
Trending Judiciary
SC Declines Urgent Relief in IndiGo Flight Cancellation Crisis, Says Centre, DGCA Already Acting

Supreme Court declines urgent intervention in the IndiGo flight-cancellation crisis, noting Centre and DGCA actions under the CAR 2024 framework.

08 December, 2025 05:29 PM

TOP STORIES

hostile-india-china-ties-no-extradition-treaty-allahabad-hc-denies-bail-to-chinese-national-in-visa-forgery-case
Trending Judiciary
Hostile India–China Ties, No Extradition Treaty: Allahabad HC Denies Bail to Chinese National in Visa Forgery Case [Read Order]

Allahabad High Court denies bail to a Chinese national accused of visa tampering and forging Indian IDs, citing hostile India–China ties and no extradition treaty.

03 December, 2025 12:53 AM
attachment-before-judgment-cannot-cover-property-sold-prior-to-suit-filing-sc
Trending Judiciary
Attachment Before Judgment Cannot Cover Property Sold Prior to Suit Filing: SC [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court holds that property transferred before a suit cannot be attached under Order 38 Rule 5; fraud allegations must be pursued separately under Section 53 TP Act.

03 December, 2025 01:30 AM
sc-holds-no-review-or-appeal-maintainable-against-order-appointing-arbitrator
Trending Judiciary
SC Holds No Review Or Appeal Maintainable Against Order Appointing Arbitrator [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court rules that no review, recall or appeal lies against a Section 11 arbitrator appointment order, reaffirming minimal judicial interference in arbitration.

03 December, 2025 01:40 AM
partner-cannot-invoke-arbitration-clause-without-express-authorisation-of-other-partners-kerala-hc
Trending Judiciary
Partner Cannot Invoke Arbitration Clause Without Express Authorisation of Other Partners: Kerala HC [Read Order]

Kerala High Court rules that a partner cannot invoke an arbitration clause or seek appointment of an arbitrator without express authorisation from co-partners.

03 December, 2025 05:19 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email