Jaipur Terror Case: Supreme Court Refuses to Release Sarwar Azmi
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on September 7, 2026, refused to suspend the life sentence of Mohammad Sarwar Azmi, alias Dhilla Pappu, in the Jaipur live-bomb case. He had sought release while challenging his conviction before the Rajasthan High Court.
According to reports of the hearing, Justices M.M. Sundresh and Prasanna Varale emphasised the gravity of terrorism and its implications for national security and public safety. The bench also refused suspension of sentence to co-convict Shahbaz Hussain.
The case dates to May 13, 2008, when eight explosions rocked Jaipur, killing 71 people and injuring 185. A ninth bomb was recovered near Ramchandra Temple in Chandpole Bazaar and defused before it could explode.
Investigators alleged that Azmi, Mohammad Saif and Saifurrahman conducted reconnaissance and planted bombs. Another accused, Shahbaz, allegedly sent an email claiming responsibility on behalf of the Indian Mujahideen. Azmi subsequently faced separate prosecutions concerning the explosions and the unexploded device.
The proceedings took a significant turn in March 29, 2023, when the Rajasthan High Court acquitted Azmi and three others in the eight blast cases, overturning death sentences imposed in December 2019. It criticised the investigation and held that the prosecution had failed to establish the chain of circumstances necessary to prove guilt.
The separate live-bomb prosecution continued. Azmi received bail in that case in October 2023, and the Supreme Court declined to interfere with that relief in January 2024. That was before his conviction.
On April 4, 2025, a special court convicted Azmi, Mohammad Saif, Saifurrahman and Shahbaz Ahmed, also known as Shahbaz Hussain, in the live-bomb case. On April 8, it sentenced them to rigorous life imprisonment under provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the Explosive Substances Act.
Azmi challenged the conviction and sought suspension of his sentence pending appeal. After the High Court refused interim relief, he approached the Supreme Court.
His lawyers argued that all nine bombs formed part of one conspiracy and that his acquittal in the eight blast cases supported his release. They also cited the roughly 12-year delay before his arrest and charges in the ninth-bomb case and submitted that he had spent over 15 years in custody.
Opposing relief, Rajasthan’s Additional Advocate General Shiv Mangal Sharma argued that the ninth-bomb prosecution involved a different location and distinct evidence. He relied on a shopkeeper’s identification of Azmi as the person who purchased the bicycle allegedly used to carry the bomb. The State also pointed out that its appeals against the earlier acquittals remained pending before the Supreme Court.
The bench declined to interfere with the High Court’s refusal to suspend the sentence and grant interim relief to Mohammad Sarwar Azmi
