The court upheld the authority of the Appellate Authority to impose stringent conditions, including high security police escort at the prisoner's expense, when granting parole to a high-risk convict with serious criminal antecedents and adverse police reports.

P.C.:-

1) By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has impugned Orders dated 20th November 2025 passed by the Competent Authority i.e. the Respondent No.3 and 5th December 2025 passed by the Appellate Authority i.e. the Respondent No.2, constituted under the Bombay Prisons (Furlough & Parole) Rules, 1959.

2) Heard Smt. Shah, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, Mr. Satpute, learned APP for the Respondents and Mr. Munde, learned Special PP for CBI. Perused entire record produced before us.

3) The Petitioner is seeking emergency parole leave to attend the rituals, prayers and 40th day of his deceased elder brother Abu Hakim Ansari, who passed away on 14th November, 2025 and for performing his obsequies. Petitioner intends to go to his native place at Mohalla Pathantola, Kasba Saraimir, Dist. Azamgarh, State-Uttar Pradesh. The Petitioner therefore filed an Application for parole leave with the Competent Authority constituted under the Bombay Prisons (Furlough & Parole) Rules, 1959. By its impugned Order dated 20th November 2025, the Competent Authority has rejected his Application for parole leave. The said Application has been rejected predominantly on two grounds namely, that there is nobody to stand surety for the Petitioner if released on parole leave and there is adverse Police Report submitted by the concerned local police. The Petitioner therefore preferred Appeal before the Appellate Authority against the said Order dated 20th November 2025. The Appellate Authority after considering the case of the Petitioner, has passed the impugned Order dated 5th December 2025. By the said Order, the Appellate Authority has granted two days emergency parole leave to the Petitioner, however has imposed a condition that the Petitioner be taken to his native place in high security police escort and the Petitioner has to bear the escort charges. As noted earlier, feeling aggrieved by both the said two Orders, present Petition is filed.

4) Smt. Shah, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that, the Petitioner was earlier released on parole leave when his mother and foster mother had expired. That, at that relevant time, no such condition was imposed upon the Petitioner. That, after attending the last rites of his said close relatives, the Petitioner returned to jail Authority in time. She submitted that, at that relevant time, the local police station did not give any adverse report. It is for the first time such a report is given by the said police station. She submitted that, the Petitioner is an accused in 1993 Bomb Blast Case (BBC). That, the co-accused of Petitioner namely Essa @ Anjum Abdul Razzaq Memon was granted parole leave on the ground of attending the last rites of his brother by Judgment dated 28th January 2021 by the co-ordinate Bench. He submitted that, while granting parole leave to Essa @ Anjum Abdul Rassaq Memon, no condition for escort was levied upon the said co-accused. She submitted that, the Petitioner is similarly situated and therefore, he be granted parole leave. She drew our attention to the Imprisonment Certificate dated 1st May 2025 issued by the Superintendent, Nashik Road Central Prison indicating that, as on 1st May 2025, the Petitioner had undergone total imprisonment of 22 years, 9 months and 2 days. She submitted that, as of today the Petitioner has undergone approximately 23 years and 9 months in actual incarceration out of 25 years of sentence imposed upon him. She therefore requested this court to set-