How Dawood Ibrahim and Lawrence Bishnoi are linked through Sabarmati jail

Sabarmati Central Jail is the unusual meeting point between two separate criminal careers. Dawood Ibrahim was detained there after a 1983 shooting and a smuggling investigation. Lawrence Bishnoi has been confined there since May 2023 while agencies pursue cases linked to his alleged criminal network. The connection is therefore a shared prison, not a stated partnership.

Dawood’s stay followed a bullet wound in his neck, his questioning by Gujarat police, and a COFEPOSA detention warrant. After a court ordered his release, authorities obtained another detention order. Bishnoi’s confinement belongs to a much later period and is described in the article through ongoing agency investigations.

The comparison matters because it spans about four decades and shows Sabarmati’s role in two major episodes involving alleged organised crime. Dawood was eventually released and left for Dubai in 1984. Bishnoi remains the later figure linked to the prison, with agencies continuing their cases.

Dawood Ibrahim’s detention at Sabarmati occurred in 1983, while Lawrence Bishnoi’s confinement there began in May 2023. The gap is therefore roughly four decades, or about 40 years. The dates place the men in entirely different phases of India’s criminal history.

Dawood reached Gujarat after a shooting during a journey from Jam Salaya and Porbandar toward Bombay. He was questioned, investigated in a smuggling case, detained under COFEPOSA, released by court order, and then detained again. Bishnoi’s confinement began much later, as agencies pursued cases linked to his alleged criminal network.

The time span is important because it makes Sabarmati a rare point of continuity. Dawood’s detention ended before he left for Dubai in 1984. The article does not state when Bishnoi will leave or how his cases will conclude. It only records his confinement since May 2023 and the continuing agency investigations.

Sabarmati Central Jail is a prison in Gujarat that served as a place of confinement for Dawood Ibrahim and later Lawrence Bishnoi. The article presents it as a rare point of intersection between two generations of India’s underworld. Their shared link is geographic and institutional, not a claim that they worked together.

Dawood was kept there after Gujarat authorities detained him under COFEPOSA in connection with an alleged smuggling operation. He later returned to the jail after a fresh detention order, following a court-directed release. Bishnoi has been confined there since May 2023 while agencies pursue cases linked to his alleged criminal network.

The jail became important because custody there coincided with turning points. Dawood faced a legal challenge and survived an attack during a transfer from the prison. Bishnoi represents a later generation and a current investigation phase. The article gives no final outcome for his confinement or the cases against him.

In June 1983, Dawood was travelling back to Bombay after visiting Jam Salaya and Porbandar. He rode in a car owned by Lallu Jogi Patel and driven by Gulab. Another underworld figure, Haji Ismail, sat behind him. The group encountered Alamzeb Pathan, a former associate who had become a rival.

Ismail tried to draw his pistol, but it misfired. The bullet passed through Ismail’s left palm, went through the front seat, and hit Dawood in the neck. Other accounts said Alamzeb fired the shot. Dawood’s wound was superficial. Gulab drove both injured men to Sayaji Hospital in Baroda and left.

Police Commissioner P K Dutta questioned Dawood after learning about the shooting. Dawood orally admitted doing “number two dhanda,” meaning smuggling, according to Kumar, but denied Alamzeb shot him. Gujarat authorities then investigated contraband reportedly worth nearly Rs 3 crore and obtained a COFEPOSA detention warrant.

COFEPOSA is the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act. In the article, it is described as a law permitting preventive detention to curb activities such as smuggling. Preventive detention is different from imprisonment after conviction because it is used to stop suspected future harmful activity rather than punish a proven offence.

Gujarat authorities were investigating an operation involving contraband reportedly worth nearly Rs 3 crore. Dawood was allegedly involved, and he had also orally admitted doing “number two dhanda,” a euphemism for smuggling, according to B V Kumar. Authorities consequently obtained a detention warrant under COFEPOSA and detained him.

The law became central to the dispute because Dawood challenged his detention. The court questioned preventive detention without tangible evidence and ordered his release, subject to conditions. Authorities then sought a fresh detention order from the Gujarat government. The case shows how preventive powers can protect public safety while still facing judicial scrutiny over evidence and legality.

Dawood’s imprisonment changed through three linked events: a court challenge, re-detention, and an armed attack. He engaged senior advocate Ram Jethmalani to challenge the COFEPOSA detention. The court questioned its legality without tangible evidence and ordered release, while stating he would be at liberty at his own risk unless detained under another law.

Release did not happen immediately. Authorities approached the Gujarat government for a fresh detention order, and Dawood was detained again in Sabarmati Jail. During a transfer to Baroda for a court hearing, a private Fiat carrying Dawood and a police escort was waylaid near Jamalpur Pagathia. Firing followed. Dawood survived, while two other men were hit.

The attack made his detention a direct security problem as well as a legal one. He later challenged his detention again and was eventually released. He left for Dubai in 1984, after what B V Kumar describes as one of his rare, short prison stays.

Preventive detention is a legal mechanism used to restrict someone’s liberty to prevent suspected future harmful activity. Punishment after conviction comes later, after a criminal case establishes guilt under the applicable legal process. The distinction matters because preventive detention can occur without a normal criminal conviction, but it still requires lawful authority and can be reviewed by courts.

Dawood’s case illustrates that tension. Gujarat authorities used COFEPOSA while investigating alleged smuggling involving contraband reportedly worth nearly Rs 3 crore. Dawood challenged the detention through Ram Jethmalani. The court questioned preventive detention without tangible evidence and ordered his release, though authorities later obtained a fresh detention order.

The episode shows the competing concerns clearly. Authorities cited alleged smuggling and even the threat to Dawood’s life when defending continued detention. The court insisted that detention could not escape legal scrutiny. The article therefore presents public safety and individual rights as interests that had to be balanced, not as automatic substitutes for one another.