New Delhi : The Supreme Court has dismissed the plea filed by gangster Abu Salem—convicted in the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts case—seeking release before the completion of his life sentence.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta found no infirmity in the Bombay High Court’s decision to reject Salem’s petition. Salem had argued that, taking into account the remissions earned during his imprisonment, he had completed 25 years of his sentence and should therefore be released.

However, the Bombay High Court had ruled that his 25-year term would only be completed in 2030. Salem challenged the High Court’s order in the Supreme Court, which reserved its verdict on July 27.

He had argued before the Court that the time spent as an undertrial prisoner and the remissions earned in jail should be counted towards the 25-year sentence limit—a term stipulated under the assurances India gave to Portugal at the time of his extradition.

During the previous hearing, after listening to arguments from Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra on Salem’s behalf, the Court had indicated that it would dismiss the plea. However, it reserved its order and granted permission to the parties to submit written arguments and supporting judgments.

Malhotra argued that, in accordance with the TADA Court’s directions, the period spent as an undertrial prisoner should be deducted from Salem’s sentence. He further contended that remissions earned for good conduct should be counted towards the actual term of imprisonment.

He highlighted the distinction between such remissions and the statutory remissions available under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). He stated that he is not claiming a statutory remission.

He noted that Salem had already received a remission of approximately three years and two months due to good conduct, and other prisoners had been released after taking such remissions into account.

According to him, the Bombay High Court had erroneously treated Salem’s case differently. The Court had held that the 25-year term stipulated under the extradition assurances was not a fixed-term sentence; therefore, it could not be reduced by the remission earned.

Report – Abhijit Tushar Bhatt (Political Editor)