1993 Bombay Blasts Case: High Court Dismisses Abu Salem's Plea Seeking Premature Release

The Bombay High Court today rejected the plea filed by underworld gangster and one of the prime convicts in the 1993 Mumbai bomb blasts case, Abu Salem, who sought premature release arguing that he has already completed 25 years of imprisonment after counting the remissions and thus as per the treaty signed between the then Indian and the Portugal governments, he must now be released.

A division bench of Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata pronounced the order in open court.

"The Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that, his current detention is unauthorized or illegal. The 25-year term, as envisioned by the Supreme Court, has not yet completed. The executive's duty to pass formal remission orders only arises one month before the completion of the said 25 years. In our view therefore, any modification or grant of Remission lowering the term of the Appellant below 25 years ought to be decided only after the completion of 25 years i.e. in November, 2030. Therefore, the present petition, seeking immediate release by incorporating earned remissions into the computation of the 25-year term, is premature, totally misconceived and devoid of merit," the court said.

Notably, a treaty was signed after the then Indian government on December 17, 2002 assured the Portugal government that since Salem is being extradited from their country for facing trial here, he will not be handed over death sentence and his prison term would also not go beyond 25 years.

In his plea filed through advocate Farhana Shah, Salem claimed that he completed 25 years in prison and sought his release in accordance with the 'extradition treaty' signed between India and Portugal at the time of his extradition in 2005.

Salem in his plea calculated his 'time in prison' since November 2005 (the time when he was brought in India), till date, along with remissions that he earned. He contended that he spent more than 25 years in prison and thus now must be released since the treaty with Portugal does not permit his sentence to be beyond 25 years. According to Salem's calculation, from November 2005 till September 2017 (undertrial period), he spent around 11 years, 9 months and 26 days. Thereafter, from February 2015 to December 2024, time spent as a convict, he claims to have stayed behind the bars for 9 years, 10 months and 4 days.

Further, the gangster said that he 'earned' 3 years and 16 days remission for his 'good behaviour' in the 2006 case and another one month relaxation was given to him by the Supreme Court for the time he spent as an undertrial prisoner in Portugal.

When all these 'periods in prison' are calculated, Salem claimed the same totals to 24 years and 9 months as a prisoner. Salem also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in July 2022, wherein the apex court too relied on the treaty with Portugal and held that in line with the said treaty, Salem will have to be released on him completing 25 years in jail.

Salem argued that his right to life and liberty as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is being breached by the authorities since he is being kept in prison beyond the 25 years jail term as agreed by the Indian authorities while signing the treaty.

The plea therefore sought a direction to the authorities to spell out an exact date of release for Salem

However, the judges disagreed with Salem on this very calculation of including the 'earned remissions' into the 25 years cap.

"The Petitioner's attempt to include 'earned remissions' to shorten the 25-year cap is legally unsustainable. The 25-year limit itself functions as a massive remission to a life sentence, necessitated by international treaty obligations. To allow further ordinary jail remissions to reduce this already capped 25-year period would violate the spirit of the Supreme Court's directions. The Apex Court explicitly noted the 'grievousness of the offence' and stated there was no question of granting special privileges to further restrict the sentence period," the bench said. 

There is no indication, the judges said, that the  Supreme Court intended that earned remissions under prison rules would operate to reduce the said 25-year period. To accept such a contention would defeat the very basis of the sentence structure arising from international obligations, the bench said. 

"The Petitioner cannot claim an automatic reduction of the 25- year term by inclusion of earned remissions. Earned remissions are under the prison Rules and therefore, it has no application. Furthermore, the Petitioner was first arrested on November 11, 2005, thus, a simple calculation of the 25-year period from the said date will be expiring in November, 2030. The Petitioner's contention that, he is entitled to release in early 2025 is based on a 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 judges held. 

The judges made it clear that neither the Remission as enumerated in Rule 4(a), (b) and (c) of the Maharashtra Prisons (Remission System) Rules, 1962 apply to the present case nor, the Remission under Section 432 of the CrPC.

Notably, the Maharashtra Government too had opposed Salem's plea  through Suhas Warke, Inspector General of Prisons & Correctional Services, pointed out that till Match 31, 2025, Salem completed only 19 years 5 months and 18 days of his prison term.

The affidavit filed by Public Prosecutor Mankunwar Deshmukh, stated that Salem has a history which is not a palatable one at all and that he has committed many offences in India.

The affidavit further stated that the proposal for Salem's release has been submitted to the Government for approval along with the opinion of the Advisory Board, concerned Court who has convicted the Prisoner, Police Report, the report of District Magistrate and with the recommendation by the Additional Director General of Police and Inspector General of Prisons.

"The petitioner is recommended to be in category of 50 years. Based on the category of 50 years, the probable date of release of the petitioner would be January 31, 2046. I say and submit that till March 31, 2025, the said Prisoner has undergone imprisonment of 19 Years, 05 months, 18 Days. The period of 25 years of the imprisonment of the Prisoner is not completed till date. Hence, the final date of completion of 25 years of Petitioner / Prisoner will be decided after the reception of the decision on the premature release of the petitioner by the Home Department, State of Maharashtra," Warke's affidavit stated.

As regards the calculations made by Salem about his time spent in prison, the affidavit stated that all his contentions are "baseless" and not in keeping with the rules prescribed.

In another affidavit filed by Sugriv Dhapate, Joint Secretary, Home Department again though PP Deshmukh, the State said that the proposal of premature release of the petitioner is under consideration of the Government and will be decided shortly.

Appearance:

Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra along with Advocates Farhana Shah, Shivaansh Maini, Darshana Gurjar, Yatish Desale and Ansuiya appeared for the Petitioner.

Chief Public Prosecutor Mankunwar Deshmukh represented the State.

Advocates Kuldeep Patil, Saili Dhuru, Anay Joshi, Digviajy Kachare, Sumitkumar Nimbalkar and  Sanika Joshi represented the CBI.

Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh along with Advocates Aditya Thakkar, Dhirendra Pratap Singh, Ayush Kedia and Krishnakant Deshmukh represented the Union of India. 

Case Title: Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari vs State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition 1586 of 2025)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 189

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment