Three convicts in the 2008 Ahmedabad serial blasts case, two among them on death row, have moved the Gujarat High Court (HC) seeking parole. The HC granted parole to one of the death row prisoners, Abbas Umar Sameja on Wednesday to appeal against the death sentence before the Supreme Court. This will be the first time Sameja, who belongs to Kutch district will be out of prison for 7 days at a stretch, under heavy security, at an address in Bhuj that he placed on court records.
The HC will hear similar petitions of death row prisoner Iqbal alias Ikrar Kasambhai Shaikh, and life convict Mohammad Safiq alias Dadabhai alias Thakur alias Rafiq alias Ali Ansari next week after they submit affidavits.
Justice Sanjeev J Thaker, in an order passed on September 2, allowed Sameja’s petition partly and directed that he be released for seven days with a police escort at the cost of the State. The court imposed conditions requiring him to furnish a personal bond of Rs 10,000, remain at a specified address in Bhuj – his son’s residence – during the entire period and surrender to the jail authorities immediately on expiry of the parole.
The state government has resisted the release of more than two prisoners at a time, on the grounds that each would require 20 personnel to escort given they were high security prisoners.
The HC had disposed of their Criminal Appeal in the case on July 7, 2026 – upholding the 38 death sentences and 11 life imprisonments handed out by a Special Trial Court in 2022.
The HC order notes that Sameja’s petition states that he required parole leave to hire a lawyer, consult on and brief the entire case, and manage funds for legal fees in connection with the proposed Supreme Court petition. The order records that an affidavit was filed on August 17, 2026, stating that once released the petitioner would reside at the address given in Bhuj, Kutch district, and would conduct all his work relating to the case from that residence.
The order also notes that a separate affidavit was filed reiterating these facts and confirming that the petitioner “would not travel to Delhi to file the Special Leave Petition (SLP), doing all such work instead from the Bhuj address”. Advocate Aarti Mistry appeared for the petitioner and said, on instructions, that the accused would stay at the said residence throughout the parole period and would not travel to any other person’s residence.
Story continues below this ad
‘Only 2 be allowed on parole’: Special Public Prosecutor
Appearing for the State, Special Public Prosecutor Mitesh Amin, along with Special Public Prosecutor Kshitij Amin and Additional Public Prosecutor Ronak Raval urged the court to add restriction on movement of the convicts. During his submission in the court on Wednesday, SPP Amin urged that the movement of the convicts be restricted to the premises mentioned in the affidavit submitted by them.
Amin said, “This would be on humanitarian grounds… his movement would be restricted to these particular premises… up to 8 o’clock or 8:30 in the night, We are trying to say that people who come to meet him should be restricted… They want raising of funds for the purpose of filing SLP (in SC)… to see that he is properly defended and he can engage the lawyer of his choice. He can gather the funds if he can…”
Amin added that with a total of 38 convicts on death row and 11 facing life imprisonment expected to make similar petitions in the coming days, the state would find it difficult to make escort arrangements if all convicts were granted parole together. “My Lords must restrict that at any time only two are allowed to be released on parole… (Since they are high security prisoners), each needs an escort of 20 personnel and therefore, it will be difficult… right now, these are from Gujarat but soon, convicts from other states will also apply for parole for the same reason.”
In response to the petitions filed by two other convicts, Amin stated that they wanted to meet relatives and advocates, “as per the jail manual it is permitted (inside jail)”. Amin said, “(The application of the other convict states that he) requires consultations and discussions with my family members, close relatives and near relatives, advocate at my resident address, so as to enable me to an appropriate (legal remedy). The tenor is not acceptable to the state. If he wants to meet his relative, the jail manual permits him to meet the relative. If he wants to meet an advocate, certainly he can do that. The only concern of the state is, and probably my Lord’s concern as well, that he should gather money to see that he is defended properly by the counsel… (The state has) reservations about how many people they can be allowed to meet… If he wants to have this luxury, let him have it at his cost (for escort).”
Story continues below this ad
Role in the blasts
Sameja, arrested on September 4, 2008 in connection with the FIR at Shahibaug police station, was convicted and sentenced to death, with the HC holding there was sufficient evidence to implicate him on the strength of his participation in a SIMI training camp at Pavagadh near Halol in January 2008, a cybercafe record placing him in the company of a co-accused, and a chit of paper recovered from his residence in Bhuj bearing a mobile number annotated as belonging to “SIMI Pakistan.”
The HC had found evidence of his participation in the camp through confessional statements of co-accused Imran Ibrahim Shaikh and Rafiuddin Kapadiya, as well as the evidence of local witnesses who identified him in a Test Identification Parade and later before the court. The prosecution case also relied on the evidence of the caretaker of Khundpir Dargah, who recalled that “Abbas of Kutch, Bhuj” had stayed there with Imran around Uttarayan in January 2008.
Cybercafé records were also relied upon to place Sameja in the company of Jahid Shaikh, accused No. 1, while a search of Sameja’s residence in Bhuj led to the recovery of a paper bearing a mobile number annotated as belonging to “SIMI Pakistan”. On the cumulative evidence, the court had found there was sufficient material to implicate him and confirmed his conviction and death sentence.
The second death convict, who has moved a similar petition – Iqbal alias Ikrar Shaikh, Accused No. 3 during the trial – and a death-row convict from Vadodara, was found to have had a more direct operational role. The evidence against him included testimony from persons who knew him and spoke of discussions concerning retaliation for alleged atrocities against Muslims, as well as evidence concerning the procurement of vehicles, cycles, scooters and a phone.
Story continues below this ad
The case also relied on testimony concerning sealed parcels Shaikh allegedly delivered to another accused in Ahmedabad. Most significantly, the prosecution relied on a pointing-out panchnama in which Shaikh led investigators to locations associated with the receipt and planting of a bicycle bomb and his movement with another bomb before an explosion at Sarkhej.
The court had found that the locations pointed out by Shaikh corresponded with an independent scene-of-offence panchnama prepared shortly after the blasts, and held that the information demonstrated his “special knowledge” of facts connected with the offences. It found the cumulative evidence sufficient to implicate him and confirmed his conviction and death sentence.
Ansari, Accused No. 66, and a resident of Ujjain in Madhya Pradesh, was sentenced to life imprisonment. The case against him centred principally on his alleged participation in the same Pavagadh-Halol training camp. He was named in the confessional statement of a co-accused under the camp alias “Shafiq”.
The prosecution also relied on a pointing-out panchnama in which Ansari led investigators to Ek Minar Masjid, identified as a place used by participants during the camp. The defence had argued that the disclosure could not amount to a discovery because investigators had already learnt of the location through earlier disclosures.
Story continues below this ad
The court rejected that contention, holding that Ansari, “not a local person but from MP”, could have possessed knowledge of the precise location through his own participation. It treated his knowledge as evidence supporting the prosecution case and found sufficient evidence to sustain the charges and conviction.
