The Bombay High Court has rejected the plea filed by 1993 Bombay bomb blast case convict Niyaz Ahmed Shaikh seeking parole to be with his ailing mother observing that recent amendment to parole and furlough rules disentitled persons who have been convicted under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) from availing the same.
TADA convicts not entitled to furlough and parole
A division bench of Justices Mangesh Patil and Abhay Waghwase, sitting at the Aurangabad bench of the HC, rejected Shaikh’s plea observing that the amendment to the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules in 2018 by the Maharashtra government stated that TADA convicts are not entitled to furlough and parole.
“A consistent view has been taken about enforceability and applicability of the statutory bar incorporated by way of amendment,” noted the bench.
Shaikh, who’s lodged at the Harsul Central Jail, Aurangabad, was convicted for his role in the bomb blast case and sentenced to life imprisonment on June 1, 2007. He sought parole claiming that his mother was suffering from tuberculosis and he needed to be with her.
He contended that he has spent more than 29 years behind bars, and including remission, he has undergone 34 years and 6 months of imprisonment.
Niyaz Ahmed Shaikh challenged state govt order refusing parole
Shaikh, 51, approached the HC challenging orders passed by the state authorities on August 1 and October 6, 2022 refusing parole leave sought by him. Shaikh had applied for parole leave on the grounds that his 70-year- old mother was ailing. His plea contended that despite the Assistant Commissioner of Police of Kurla Division in Mumbai having given a favourable report, the state authorities rejected his application.
Opposing his plea, public prosecutor GO Wattamwar submitted that no fault or infirmity could be found in the orders under challenge. Wattamwar had placed reliance on a notification passed in 2018 by which Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules were amended by the Maharashtra government. According to the amendment, TADA convicts are not entitled to furlough and parole.
Relying on the amendment and earlier orders, the HC rejected Shaikh’s parole plea.
