Skip to content

    Bombay High Court Denies Emergency Parole to Abu Salem: The Dispute Over ₹17.6 Lakh Police Escort Charges Explained

    HC News

    1. Home
    2. /HC News

    Bombay High Court Denies Emergency Parole to Abu Salem: The Dispute Over ₹17.6 Lakh Police Escort Charges Explained

    The Bombay High Court has denied emergency parole to 1993 Mumbai blasts convict Abu Salem after he failed to pay ₹17.6 lakh in police escort charges. Read the full legal analysis of the court's decision and the security concerns involved.

    Jurisight
    Feb 5, 2026·3 min read
    Bombay High Court Denies Emergency Parole to Abu Salem: The Dispute Over ₹17.6 Lakh Police Escort Charges Explained

    The Bombay High Court has recently dismissed a plea filed by 1993 Mumbai serial blasts convict and underworld gangster Abu Salem, seeking emergency parole to visit his hometown in Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh. The court’s decision came after Salem expressed his inability to pay the hefty police escort charges amounting to ₹17.60 lakh, which were a prerequisite for his temporary release.

    Abu Salem, who is currently serving a life sentence at the Nashik Central Jail, approached the court following the death of his brother, Abu Hakim Ansari. He sought "emergency parole" for a period of 15 days to attend the funeral rites and mourn with his family in Azamgarh.

    Under the Maharashtra Prison (Prisons and Parole) Rules, convicts are often allowed temporary release for specific reasons like the death of a close family member. However, for "high-risk" prisoners like Salem, this permission often comes with strict conditions, including a 24/7 high-security police escort at the prisoner's own expense.

    The primary hurdle in Salem’s request was the cost of security. The jail authorities and the Appellate Authority had granted him permission to travel, but only on the condition that he deposit ₹17.60 lakh to cover the expenses of the police team required to escort him to Uttar Pradesh and back.

    Advertisement

    During the hearing before a division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Shyam Chandak, Salem’s counsel, Advocate Farhana Shah, argued that her client had been in prison for nearly 24 years and did not have the financial means to pay such a massive sum. She stated that Salem could only manage to gather ₹1 lakh through a third-party loan and urged the court to lower the charges on humanitarian grounds.

    The State of Maharashtra, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Ashish Satpute, strongly opposed any reduction in the charges or the security detail. The prosecution highlighted several critical points:

    1. High-Risk Category: Salem is a prime convict in the 1993 Mumbai Bomb Blasts and has a history of fleeing the country (extradited from Portugal in 2005).
    2. Communal Sensitivity: Local police reports from Azamgarh’s Saraymir area suggested that the region is "communally sensitive." There were concerns that the presence of a high-profile gangster like Salem could lead to law and order issues or public celebrations by his supporters.
    3. Mandatory Rules: The state argued that the escort charges are calculated based on a set formula for security personnel and cannot be waived or arbitrarily reduced for individual convicts.

    Advocate Shah countered the state's "celebration" concerns by clarifying that Salem was visiting for a funeral, not a festival. She reminded the bench that Salem had been granted parole twice in the past—following the deaths of his mother and foster mother—and had returned to jail without any security incidents.

    She further argued that characterising Salem as an "international gangster" was an exaggeration in this context, as his extradition cases were concluded and he was merely seeking to perform his religious and familial duties.

    After hearing both sides, the Bombay High Court upheld the decision of the Appellate Authority. The bench observed that the condition to pay escort charges is a mandatory requirement for prisoners of Salem’s profile. Since the convict refused to comply with the financial conditions set by the state, the court found no reason to interfere with the denial of parole.

    The court emphasized that while emergency parole is a provision for mourning, the security of the state and the rules governing high-risk convicts take precedence.

    Explore related legal coverage

    Continue with reporting and analysis connected to this article.

    Browse HC News

    More from this court

    • Kapil Sharma Show Faces Music Copyright Case In Bombay HC

      Bombay High Court

    • 60-Day Deadline for Drug Testing is Mandatory; Delays Help Sub-standard Manufacturers: Bombay High Court

      Bombay High Court

    • "Entire Process Was Rigged": Bombay High Court Quashes Vile Parle Property Sale, Forfeits Bidders' Deposits

      Bombay High Court

    • "Do Eyewitnesses Need Photographic Memory?": SC Slams Bombay HC for Granting Bail in Brutal Caste-Based Murder

      Bombay High Court

    Related legal topics

    • Gauhati High Court Upheld Assam SOP on Compassionate Appointment: "Fixing Cut-Off Date Not Illegal"

      HC News

    • Pregnancy Cannot Block Education, MP High Court Rules

      HC News

    Advertisement

    Jurisight

    See more from Jurisight →
    Jurisight logoJurisight logo

    Simplifying legal knowledge for professionals and citizens. Your daily source for Supreme Court, High Court, and Business Law updates.

    Platform

    HomeAll ArticlesTop NewsSC UpdatesHC Updates

    Categories

    Business LawConstitutionalCriminal LawCivil LawKnow Your Law

    Weekly Digest

    Join 15,000+ others and get the week's most important legal updates.

    © 2026 Jurisight. All rights reserved.
    Privacy PolicyCookie PolicyCookie ConsentLegal Disclaimer