Bombay High Court Firmly Rejects Abu Salem's Bid for Early Release
In a decisive ruling, the Bombay High Court on Wednesday dismissed gangster Abu Salem's petition seeking release from jail, labeling it as "premature and totally misconceived." The petition argued that with remission for good conduct, Salem had completed his 25-year sentence in the infamous 1993 Mumbai serial bomb blasts case.
Court Cites Supreme Court Order and Extradition Terms
Citing a 2022 Supreme Court order, the High Court bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Kamal Khata observed that Salem's term is set to conclude on November 10, 2030. This date is based on his extradition from Portugal to India and subsequent arrest on November 11, 2005. The court firmly stated that no remission rules apply to his case under these circumstances.
"Since the 25 years would be completed on November 10, 2030, the present application seeking to include remission is clearly misconceived," the bench declared in their judgment. They emphasized that Salem's "claim for reduction of the term based on remission earned will have no application" under either the Maharashtra Prisons (Remission System) Rules, 1962, or the Criminal Procedure Code.
Background of the Legal Battle
In February, the Supreme Court had refused to entertain Salem's plea, which claimed he was in "illegal custody" for over 10 months as he had already undergone the 25-year sentence awarded in the March 12, 1993, serial blasts case. The apex court directed him to present his arguments before the High Court, where he subsequently sought early release.
According to the extradition terms agreed upon by India and Portugal, Salem cannot be given the death penalty, and his prison term cannot exceed 25 years. Salem's senior counsel, Rishi Malhotra, along with advocate Farhana Shah, argued that remission rules should apply, potentially reducing his time in jail.
State and Central Agencies Oppose Plea
However, the state, represented by prosecutor MM Deshmukh; the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), through counsel Kuldeep Patil; and the Centre, via Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, opposed Salem's plea, deeming it lacking in merit. The High Court concurred, finding no substance in Salem's contention and clarifying that the Supreme Court never intended for earned remissions under prison rules to reduce the 25-year period.
"To accept such a contention would defeat the very basis of the sentence structure arising from international obligations," the HC judgment, authored by Justice Khata, stated.
Court's Detailed Observations
The High Court also noted that Salem's plea stems from a life sentence imposed in 2017 by a special trial court under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), with its duration restricted to 25 years due to sovereign assurances. His pretrial detention from 2005 to 2017 is included within this 25-year timeframe.
The bench stressed that Salem "cannot claim an automatic reduction of the 25-year term by inclusion of earned remission. Earned remissions are under the prison rules and therefore, it has no application." Furthermore, the court pointed out that Salem "failed to demonstrate that his current detention is unauthorized or illegal" since the term as envisioned by the Supreme Court remains incomplete.
Timing of Remission Consideration
The High Court observed that the executive's duty to pass formal remission orders only arises one month before the completion of the 25 years. Any decision regarding the grant of remission that could lower the term should be made only in November 2030. "The apex court has categorically reserved the right to decide on any other reductions to itself," the HC order stated, while dismissing Salem's plea.
The bench also criticized Salem's case for early release, describing it as "based on flawed aggregation of remissions." "The remissions cannot be applied to reduce the fixed 25-year threshold applied as a result of the extradition treaty," the HC held. It added that "the TADA court, in its order dated December 10, 2024, rightly observed that SC's directions regarding the 25-year period are clear and that the petitioner remains a convict undergoing sentence for heinous crimes against the state."
