Bombay High Court Dismisses Convict's Parole Application for Want of Jurisdiction - Abu Salem's Parole Plea Rejected as Filed Before Wrong Court. The court held that the petition was not maintainable as it was filed before the wrong bench, and the convict must approach the appropriate court having jurisdiction over the prison where he is confined.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY

Admin

2026-05-18 14:56:50

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari, a convict currently confined in Nashik Road Central Prison, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court seeking parole. The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Rishi Malhotra. The respondents included the State of Maharashtra, the Superintendent of Prisons at Nashik and Taloja, the Union of India, and the DIGP, CBI. The court, comprising Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata, reserved judgment on 26th March 2026 and pronounced it on 15th April 2026. The core legal issue was whether the Bombay High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the parole petition given that the petitioner was confined in a prison located in Nashik, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court. The court held that under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court has jurisdiction over persons and authorities within its territorial limits. Since the petitioner was confined in Nashik Road Central Prison, which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court, the court had jurisdiction. However, the court noted that the petition was filed before the wrong bench or division and dismissed it, directing the petitioner to approach the appropriate bench. The decision was based on the principle that parole applications must be filed before the court having jurisdiction over the prison where the convict is confined.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure - Parole - Jurisdiction - High Court's power to grant parole - Convict confined in Nashik Road Central Prison (Maharashtra) filed parole petition before Bombay High Court - Held that the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to entertain parole applications of convicts confined within its territorial jurisdiction, but the petition was dismissed as the convict was not confined within the territorial limits of the Bombay High Court at the relevant time (Paras 1-5).

Issue of Consideration

Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition for parole when the convict is confined in a prison outside its territorial jurisdiction.

Final Decision

The petition was dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate court.

Law Points

Jurisdiction
Parole
Prison Rules
High Court's power to grant parole
Proper forum for parole application

Case Details

2026:BHC-AS:17717-DB

Writ Petition No. 1586 of 2025

2026-04-15

A. S. Gadkari, Kamal Khata

2026:BHC-AS:17717-DB

Mr. Rishi Malhotra, Senior Advocate a/w Ms. Farhana Sahah, Mr. Shivaansh Maini, Ms. Darshana Gurjar, Mr. Yatish Desale, Ms. Ansuiya for the Petitioner. Ms. M. M. Deshmukh, Acting PP for the Respondent-State. Mr. Kuldeep Patil a/w Ms. Saili Dhuru, Mr. Anay Joshi, Mr. Digviajy Kachare, Mr. Sumitkumar Nimbalkar, Ms. Sanika Joshi for Respondent–CBI. Mr. Anil C. Singh, ASG a/w Mr. Aditya Thakkar, Mr. D.P. Singh, Mr. Ayush Kedia, Mr. Krishnakant Deshmukh for Respondent No.4-UOI.

Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari

The State of Maharashtra, The Supt. of Prison, Nashik Road Central Prison, Nashik, The Supt. of Prison, Taloja Central Prison, Navi Mumbai, The Union of India, Law & Justice Dept., Aaybar Bhavan, Marine Lines, Mumbai, The DIGP, CBI, STB, 5th Floor, CBI Bldg., Near MTNL 'G' Block, BKC, Mumbai-400 051

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition seeking parole by a convict confined in Nashik Road Central Prison.

Remedy Sought

The petitioner sought parole from the Bombay High Court.

Filing Reason

The petitioner, a convict, filed a writ petition for parole.

Issues

Whether the Bombay High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a parole petition of a convict confined in Nashik Road Central Prison.

Submissions/Arguments

The petitioner argued for grant of parole. The respondents opposed the petition on jurisdictional grounds.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court has jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to entertain parole applications of convicts confined within its territorial limits. However, the petition was dismissed as it was filed before the wrong bench.

Judgment Excerpts

The court held that the petition is not maintainable as it has been filed before the wrong court. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate court for the relief sought.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1586 of 2025 before the Bombay High Court seeking parole. The court reserved judgment on 26th March 2026 and pronounced it on 15th April 2026, dismissing the petition.