Bombay High Court Sets Thursday Deadline for Abu Salem's Parole Plea Decision
The Bombay High Court has issued a firm deadline to Abu Salem Ansari, the convicted perpetrator in the notorious 1993 Mumbai serial bomb blasts case. Currently serving a 25-year sentence at Nashik Central Prison, Salem has been given until this Thursday to clarify whether he intends to withdraw his application for emergency parole to Uttar Pradesh.
Parole Request Following Family Bereavement
Salem's plea for emergency parole was initiated following the tragic demise of his elder brother in November 2025. The convict sought permission to travel to his hometown in Uttar Pradesh to participate in final rites and family obligations. However, the proceedings have become entangled in logistical and financial considerations regarding security arrangements.
During the previous hearing, the High Court had indicated a potential willingness to grant the parole under specific conditions. The bench explicitly stated that Salem would be required to bear all associated costs for police escorts during his temporary release. This condition has become the central point of contention in the ongoing legal debate.
Financial Dispute Over Escort Arrangements
During Tuesday's proceedings, Salem's legal representative, advocate Farhana Shah, presented her client's financial limitations to the court. She stated that Salem could manage to pay approximately Rs 1 lakh toward escort expenses and suggested that "10-12 police escorts were sufficient" for the temporary release period.
The division bench comprising Justices AS Gadkari and SC Chandak responded firmly to this proposal. They orally remarked, "We are not bargaining. It is for the state machinery to decide the appropriate security arrangements." The judges made it unequivocally clear that if Salem cannot arrange payment for the escort charges, he must either voluntarily withdraw his parole application or face its dismissal by the court.
Substantial Security Costs Presented by State
The Maharashtra state government had previously outlined substantial security requirements for Salem's temporary release. In December of last year, authorities estimated that a proper security detail would necessitate over Rs 17.5 lakh for a 41-member police team covering a four-day period, including all travel and operational expenses.
Advocate Shah characterized these estimated costs as "exorbitant" and beyond her client's financial capabilities. She reminded the court that Salem has been in continuous custody since his extradition from Portugal in 2005 and argued that he had never previously abused liberty when granted parole without being charged for escort fees.
Prosecution's Concerns About International Implications
Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI, Amit Mundeon, supported the state government's position through an affidavit submitted by in-charge Public Prosecutor MM Deshmukh. The prosecution emphasized that Salem remains classified as an "international gangster" whose potential escape would create serious diplomatic issues between the Portuguese and Indian governments.
The state's affidavit specifically recommended that if parole were granted, it should be limited to just two days under strict police supervision. This cautious approach reflects ongoing concerns about security risks associated with temporary release of high-profile convicts with international criminal connections.
Timing Considerations and Legal Strategy
Advocate Shah presented an additional perspective during her arguments, suggesting that the state's stringent financial demands might be strategically timed. She noted that Salem is "close to completing his sentence now," implying that authorities might be implementing particularly rigorous conditions as his prison term approaches its conclusion.
The Bombay High Court's Thursday deadline now places the decision squarely back with Abu Salem and his legal team. They must determine whether to proceed with a parole application requiring substantial financial commitments for security or withdraw the plea entirely, foregoing the opportunity to visit his family in Uttar Pradesh following his brother's passing.
This case continues to highlight the complex balance between humanitarian considerations for prisoners and legitimate security concerns, particularly for convicts involved in terrorism cases with international dimensions. The outcome will establish important precedents regarding financial responsibilities for security during temporary releases of high-risk prisoners in India's judicial system.
