Bombay HC Dismisses Abu Salem’s Emergency Parole Plea, Refuses to Relax Police Escort Condition

The Bombay High Court on Thursday dismissed a plea filed by gangster Abu Salem seeking emergency parole without police escort, holding that courts cannot interfere with security conditions imposed by competent authorities merely on grounds of financial hardship, particularly in cases involving serious offences and adverse police assessments.

A Division Bench of Justices A.S. Gadkari and Shyam Chandak dismissed Salem’s petition, holding that it saw “no reason to interfere” with the orders passed by the competent authorities. The Bench noted that while parole had been permitted subject to police escort, Salem had himself stated before the Court that he was unable to bear the escort charges, estimated at Rs. 17.60 lakh, leaving no scope for granting relief.

Salem, who is currently lodged in Nashik Central Jail, had approached the High Court seeking a 14-day emergency parole to attend religious ceremonies following the death of his elder brother, Abu Hakim Ansari, who passed away on November 14, 2025. The parole was sought to attend the 40-day prayer ceremony, Quran Khwani, and other related rites at his native place in Uttar Pradesh.

The plea followed the rejection of Salem’s initial emergency parole application by prison authorities on November 20, 2025, on the ground that the surety proposed by him was not appropriate. Thereafter, Salem approached senior police authorities, leading to an order dated December 5 by the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons permitting a two-day parole under strict police escort, subject to several conditions, including a prohibition on meeting anyone and consuming food from outside.

Challenging this order, Salem moved the High Court contending that the condition requiring him to bear the cost of a police escort was impossible to comply with. Through his counsel, he argued that having spent over two decades in incarceration, he had no independent source of income and was therefore unable to pay the escort charges.

Opposing the plea, Additional Public Prosecutor Ashish Satpute submitted that the authorities had legitimate apprehensions that Salem could abscond if released without escort. He pointed out that the purpose for which parole was sought had already lost immediacy, as the rites Salem intended to attend had already passed.

“He has to bear the expenses if he wants to go,” the prosecutor submitted, adding that parole without escort could not be considered in light of the security concerns involved.

The State further highlighted that Salem had earlier been convicted by a Portuguese court in 2002 for travelling on a forged passport, describing him as an “international criminal” whose movements required heightened security scrutiny.

It was also submitted that Salem’s native place, Saraymir in Uttar Pradesh, was a communally sensitive area, and releasing him without escort could potentially disturb public order and tranquillity.

Appearing for Salem, Advocate Farhana Shah contested the prosecution’s characterisation, submitting that Salem had been convicted in Portugal only in a single passport case and could not be labelled an international criminal on that basis.

She argued that Salem was not an original conspirator in the 1993 Mumbai serial bombings case and had been implicated primarily for delivering arms consignments.

Shah further submitted that other convicts in the same case, including Essa Abdul Razak Memon, had been granted parole in the past, and questioned the differential treatment being meted out to Salem. Emphasising that Salem had already undergone more than 23 years of incarceration and had only about a year of sentence remaining, counsel argued that the apprehension of absconding was unfounded.

The defence also pointed out that Salem had previously been released on parole without police escort on two occasions following the deaths of his mother and foster mother, and had complied with all conditions imposed on him during those releases.

On the other hand, counsel appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation relied on an adverse report submitted by the Sayamir police station, asserting that Salem’s criminal background and the gravity of the offences for which he stood convicted justified the insistence on a police escort.

It was submitted that relaxing escort conditions would pose serious security risks and could set an undesirable precedent.

After considering the rival submissions, the High Court noted that multiple police reports, including those placed by senior officers, had flagged the risk of Salem absconding if released without escort.

The Bench observed that the competent authorities had already exercised their discretion by permitting parole only under strict security conditions and that the Court could not substitute its own assessment for that of the security agencies.

“We do not see any reason to interfere with the orders issued by the competent authorities. We find no merit in the petition,” the Bench observed while dismissing the plea.

The Court also took note of the fact that Salem had earlier been given the option of availing a short-duration parole under escort, and that the State had even expressed readiness to grant a four-day parole, excluding travel time, provided the escort charges were paid.

Since Salem categorically stated that he was unable to bear the escort expenses, the Bench held that no further relief could be granted.

With this, the High Court reaffirmed that while humanitarian considerations are relevant in parole matters, they cannot override security assessments in cases involving high-risk convicts.

Case Title: Abu Salem v. State of Maharashtra

Bench: Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Shyam Chandak

Date of Order: 05.02.2026