Vijay under fire over parole for Coimbatore blast convicts who targeted LK Advani, killed 58

The Tamil Nadu government granted 60 days of parole to five men serving life sentences for the 1998 Coimbatore serial bombings. The blasts killed 58 people and injured more than 200. The decision matters because the case involved a major terror attack whose believed target was senior BJP leader L K Advani.

The five prisoners are Mohammed Ansari, Mohammed Ali, Monappa alias Mohammed Hassan, Mohammed Ajam, and Nawab Khan. They are aged between 46 and 55 and lodged in Coimbatore Central Prison. Prison officials said they requested parole because of personal circumstances and health conditions. Their earlier approvals had reportedly been held during Assembly elections.

The government says the parole followed the regular process and matched relief given to other accused. The BJP calls it selective softness towards convicted terrorists. A TVK MLA thanked Vijay for the decision. Earlier court concessions to other convicts show that temporary leave has been granted in this case before.

Parole is temporary, authorised leave granted to a prisoner who remains convicted and sentenced. It does not cancel the sentence or declare the prisoner innocent. In this case, the five men remain life convicts, even while spending 60 days outside prison. The article describes parole as a normal right of a prisoner.

The key mechanism is conditional release. Prison officials consider a petition, including personal circumstances or health conditions, and approve a limited period away from prison. The prisoner remains under the legal consequences of the conviction. The five men petitioned for parole, and officials said their applications had been approved after an earlier hold during the Assembly elections.

An overturned conviction is different. It means a court sets aside the conviction or sentence, usually after reviewing the case. Release then follows because the legal basis for imprisonment has changed. Parole instead leaves the conviction and sentence intact. The article also records earlier temporary leave for other Coimbatore blast convicts.

The bombings were among the deadliest episodes described in the article’s account of Coimbatore’s communal tensions. Coordinated explosions struck the city on February 14, 1998. They killed 58 people and injured more than 200 others. Those figures show why the case remains politically and emotionally sensitive decades later.

The attack happened ahead of an election meeting that senior BJP leader L K Advani was scheduled to address. Coimbatore was already communally charged after the killing of 18 Muslims in police firing and communal violence in late 1997. A commission later linked the bombings to that earlier violence and blamed police for failing to prevent the explosions.

The scale of the attack shaped the criminal case that followed. Police arrested 168 people. Of the 166 people tried, 158 were convicted in 2007, and 43 received life sentences. The five men now granted parole are among those serving life terms. The BJP says the attack’s gravity should weigh heavily against personal grounds for leave.

L K Advani was believed to be the main target because the bombings were timed around an election meeting he was due to address in Coimbatore. Advani was a senior BJP leader, and the attack occurred in a city described as communally charged. The suspected political target made the blasts especially significant beyond their immediate human toll.

The explosions were coordinated across the city on February 14, 1998. They took place ahead of the meeting, rather than after Advani had begun speaking. The article states that Advani escaped because he had not yet arrived at the meeting when the explosions happened. His absence at that moment prevented him from being caught in the attack.

The bombings nevertheless caused mass casualties: 58 people died and more than 200 were injured. The Justice P R Gokulakrishnan Commission later traced the attack to earlier communal violence and police firing. The article does not provide further detail about the attackers’ specific plan for Advani beyond identifying him as the believed main target.

The arrests created a large criminal case after the 1998 Coimbatore bombings. Police took 168 people into custody. One person died, and another became an approver, meaning that person gave evidence for the prosecution. The remaining case proceeded against 166 people who were tried.

In 2007, courts convicted 158 of those tried. Among them, 43 received life sentences. The article identifies the radical outfit Al-Umma as accused of organising the bombings. Its founder S A Basha and general secretary Mohammed Ansari were convicted of conspiracy. The five men receiving parole are among the life convicts held in Coimbatore Central Prison.

The figures explain both the case’s exceptional size and the continuing controversy. Most of those tried were convicted, while the life terms imposed on 43 people reflected the seriousness of the prosecution’s case. The BJP points to the attack’s death toll and past Supreme Court bail refusal when opposing the latest parole decision.

The dispute centers on whether the parole decision is ordinary prison administration or improper leniency toward people convicted in a major terror case. The Tamil Nadu government says the five had spent a long time in prison and qualified through the regular process. Their petitions cited personal circumstances and health conditions.

The BJP takes a different view. State spokesperson Narayanan Thirupathy said personal grounds cannot override the gravity of the attack. He also referred to the Supreme Court’s October 4, 2023, refusal to grant bail to some life convicts while their appeals were pending. A TVK MLA, V M S Mustafa, separately thanked Vijay for the parole.

The political tension is sharpened by the attack’s scale and by claims of political benefit. The BJP accused the TVK government led by Vijay of selective softness towards convicted terrorists. The government points to earlier leave for other convicts, including nine who received interim leave in 2023, to argue that the decision is not exceptional.

A prisoner can receive temporary leave because parole and the underlying sentence operate differently. The sentence determines the prisoner’s continuing legal status. Parole is a limited release permitted under prison or court procedures. It does not mean the conviction has been overturned, and it does not convert a life sentence into freedom.

The five Coimbatore convicts petitioned for parole by citing personal circumstances and health conditions. Prison officials said their petitions had been cleared earlier in the year, but release was held during the Assembly elections. Fresh petitions were later approved. The government described this as part of the regular process for prisoners who had spent a long time in custody.

The article records comparable examples. Nine convicts received interim leave on health grounds in January 2023, with extensions considered by the Madras High Court. The court also granted three months’ ordinary leave to Abdul Hakeem after his wife cited serious illness. These examples show how temporary leave can coexist with continuing life sentences.