1993 Bombay Blasts Case: Convict Files Petition for Medical Care, HC Rejects Tiger Memon Kin’s Property Plea

Convict Seeks Urgent Medical Treatment in Jail

A convict in the 1993 Bombay serial bomb blasts case, Nasir Abdul Kadar Kewal alias Nasir Dhakla, has approached the Bombay High Court seeking urgent medical treatment. Kewal, who is serving a life sentence at Nashik Central Prison, filed a writ petition on August 20 through Advocate Farhana Shah, alleging negligence on the part of prison authorities and requesting court intervention.

In his plea, Kewal highlighted his medical history, including ischaemic heart disease and hypertension, which had led to multiple hospital admissions at Sir J.J. Hospital in April 2025. Following his discharge on April 23, doctors recommended strict medication compliance and regular follow-up visits. However, Kewal alleged that his repeated requests to be taken for check-ups were denied due to the “unavailability of escort staff.”

The petition argues that adequate medical treatment is a constitutional right, even for convicted prisoners, and the denial of treatment poses a severe risk to his life. Kewal emphasized that he has been incarcerated for over 30 years without misusing any parole or liberty granted by authorities.

The plea further states:

“As it is a question of health, it cannot be neglected by jail authorities. If they are unable to provide necessary treatment, the convict should be allowed hospitalisation in a private facility at his family’s expense.”

Kewal was arrested in July 1995 and sentenced to life imprisonment by a TADA court for his role in the March 12, 1993, Mumbai serial blasts that killed over 250 people and injured hundreds.

---

HC Dismisses Tiger Memon Relatives’ Challenge to Flat Forfeiture

In a separate development linked to the same case, the Bombay High Court has rejected a plea by five relatives of absconding blast accused Tiger Memon challenging the forfeiture of two flats in Kurla, Mumbai.

The flats, originally purchased in 1980 by Tiger Memon’s parents, Abdul Razak Suleman Memon and Hanifa Memon, were transferred informally to family members in 1992, but no registered sale deeds supported the claims.

Following the 1993 blasts, the properties were seized under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA), with authorities citing them as illegally acquired assets. The properties were also attached under the TADA Act in January 1994.

---

Prolonged Litigation and Forfeiture History

The appellate tribunal had upheld the forfeiture order on November 4, 1999, a decision that was unsuccessfully challenged in the Bombay High Court in 2000, leading to a final dismissal in 2005.

In March 2025, the TADA Court lifted attachment over multiple properties, releasing them to the central government. Aggrieved relatives then filed a fresh petition in June 2025, claiming ownership rights.

On August 2, 2025, SAFEMA issued an order to peacefully hand over the flats, but the relatives contested this, submitting evidence of payments allegedly made in 1992 to purchase the properties.

---

Court’s Observations: No Title or Ownership Rights Established

A bench of Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad dismissed the petition, stating that the relatives had failed to establish valid ownership. With no registered deeds and repeated unsuccessful appeals, the court concluded that the petitioners could not claim any rights over the properties.

The bench observed:

“It is inconceivable that a bona fide purchaser for value would remain silent and refrain from asserting rights for over three decades.”

The court stressed that reopening the case after decades of litigation would create an endless cycle of legal challenges.

---

Legal Significance

This judgment reinforces the government’s powers under SAFEMA and TADA to seize illegally acquired property linked to terrorism and organised crime. It also highlights the judiciary’s reluctance to reopen settled forfeiture cases, particularly where ownership claims remain unsubstantiated for extended periods.

Meanwhile, Kewal’s petition raises pressing questions on prisoner healthcare and human rights, drawing attention to the state’s constitutional obligation to ensure adequate medical facilities for inmates, regardless of their convictions.

---

Key Takeaways for Legal Professionals and Policy Observers:

• SAFEMA’s strict forfeiture provisions leave little room for reclaiming properties linked to criminal proceeds.

• The judiciary maintains finality of litigation to prevent endless disputes in property forfeiture cases.

• Convicts’ right to healthcare remains a constitutional safeguard, potentially leading to stronger guidelines for prison administrations.

• Both cases highlight ongoing legal legacies of the 1993 Mumbai bomb blasts, one of India’s most consequential terror trials.

---