Madiha Raza
On 15 January 1994, Nisar-ud-din Ahmad, a 19 year old pharmacy student from Gulbarga (now Kalaburagi) Karnataka, left his home to attend college. With his examinations just 15 days away, he had little reason to believe that his ordinary college journey would turn into a 23 year long separation from his family.
He never reached college that day. A police team from Hyderabad picked him up near his residence in connection with the December 1993 train blasts. According to accounts published by The Wire, Nisar was kept in illegal custody for more than a month, during which he was allegedly subjected to torture and custodial violence. His family remained unaware of his whereabouts for weeks.
Nisar had been accused in a series of train blasts reported in December 1993, involving trains in Kota, Hyderabad, Surat, Kanpur and Mumbai. His arrest marked the beginning of a prolonged legal battle that would consume the next two decades of his life.
The prosecution’s case against him relied primarily on a confession recorded during police custody under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA). The legislation contained special provisions permitting certain confessions made to designated police officers to be admitted as evidence in court.
In 2004, a designated TADA court convicted Nisar and sentenced him to life imprisonment. However, the evidence supporting the conviction would later come under scrutiny before the Supreme Court.
While Nisar remained behind bars, his father, Noor ud din Ahmad, continued fighting for his release. He spent his savings and financial resources pursuing the legal battle to establish his son’s innocence. But the struggle came at a personal cost. Noor-ud-din died in 2006, ten years before his son would finally walk free.
On 11 May 2016, the Supreme Court of India set aside Nisar’s conviction and sentence in its judgment in Mohd. Jalees Ansari and Others v. Central Bureau of Investigation.
The Court found that there was no independent material on record to corroborate Nisar’s confession and held that his conviction could not be sustained.
“The conviction and sentence of A10 is therefore completely unsustainable,” the Supreme Court observed.
The Court allowed his appeal and ordered his release, unless he was required in connection with another case.
On 28 May 2016, after spending 23 years in prison, Nisar walked out of Jaipur Central Jail at the age of 43.
The 19 year old who had left home for college in 1994 had emerged from prison more than two decades later, having lost the years in which he could have completed his education, built a career and lived alongside his family.
Speaking after his release, Nisar described the impact of those years in words that captured the consequences of his prolonged imprisonment.
“After 23 years in jail, I am free, but what you see now is a living corpse,” he said.
He also questioned how he could recover the years taken away from him: “Who will give me back the 23 years I lost?”
His family’s story reflected the passage of time just as painfully. His younger sister, who was 12 when he was arrested, had a 12-year-old daughter by the time he was released. A niece who was barely a year old when he was taken into custody had grown up and married.
His father, who had spent his remaining years fighting for his release, never got to see him return home.
Nisar’s case raises broader questions about the consequences of prolonged incarceration when a conviction is ultimately found unsustainable. Although the Supreme Court set aside his conviction and ordered his release, the decision did not automatically compensate him for the 23 years he spent in prison.
For Nisar ud din Ahmad, the Supreme Court’s intervention brought an end to his imprisonment. But it could not restore his youth, bring back his father or return the years he had lost.
He was 19 when he left home for college. He was 43 when he walked out of prison.
The question that remained was simple: who would answer for the 23 years he could never get back?
