Convict who gave arms to Sanjay Dutt challenges remission in sentence

MUMBAI: A convict in the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts case, who had carried weapons to the house of actor Sanjay Dutt along with co-accused prior to the explosions in furtherance of conspiracy, has moved the Bombay High Court challenging cancellation of remission in sentence awarded to him.

Ibrahim Moosa Chauhan alias Baba Chauhan was initially granted remission in his 10-year sentence on account of good conduct and was to be released from prison in November 2015.

However, his remission was cancelled by Inspector General (prisons) recently, says the petition. Aggrieved, he moved the high court.

Dutt was also sentenced to five years imprisonment by a TADA court and is due to be released from jail next month. His jail term was reduced by 18 months on account of his good behaviour and work done by him in prison.

The actor has already spent around three-and-a-half years in jail.

Chauhan pleaded he was similarly placed like Dutt and had displayed good behaviour in prison like the actor. He, therefore, should be given the same facility of remission on the lines of the remission granted to Dutt.

The petition is slated to come up for hearing on January 22 before Acting Chief Justice V K Tahilramani.

Chauhan, in his petition filed through lawyer Farhana Shah, claimed that the Inspector General (Prisons) had cancelled the remission granted to him "without applying his mind and with a malafide intention."

Chauhan argued that he was pinned down only because he is a bomb blast convict.

Chauhan's petition said that he was assigned the work of gardening, cleaning toilets and water tanks in Nashik jail.

He accumulated remission on account of good work and behaviour. It was only because of his good conduct that he was granted 80 days special remission.

However, when he returned to jail after his parole expired on November 24, he was informed in a letter that his special remission had been cancelled, said Chauhan's petition.

Chauhan further claimed that this action was taken against him on the basis of a statement made by a prison inmate that he was not properly doing the work assigned to him in prison.