Search

    Language Settings
    Select Website Language

    GDPR Compliance

    We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. By continuing to use our site, you accept our use of cookies, Privacy Policy, and Terms of Service.

    Supreme Court Rejects Abu Salem’s Plea for Premature Release in 1993 Mumbai Blasts Case

    9 hours ago

    1

    0

    👍 ❤️ 😂 😮 😢 😡

    Yugcharan News / 10-09-2026

    The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a plea filed by gangster Abu Salem seeking his premature release from prison in connection with the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts case. Salem had argued that the period he spent as an undertrial prisoner, along with remission earned for good conduct, should be taken into account while calculating the 25-year imprisonment limit linked to India's extradition assurances to Portugal.

    A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta pronounced the judgment after considering Salem's challenge to the Bombay High Court's decision rejecting his request for early release. The Supreme Court had previously heard arguments on the issue and indicated that the plea was likely to be dismissed before reserving its order for consideration of written submissions and supporting judgments.

    The case concerns the complicated legal consequences of the assurances given by India to Portugal when Salem was extradited to India. On December 17, 2002, India assured Portugal that Salem would not be sentenced to death and would not remain imprisoned for more than 25 years following his extradition. Salem relied on those assurances while arguing that he had effectively completed the period of imprisonment contemplated under the arrangement.

    According to the material placed before the court, Salem contended that several periods of custody and earned remission should be added together while determining whether he had completed the 25-year period. His legal team argued that the calculation should not be limited to the simple period beginning with his arrest as a convict.

    The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether earned remission for good conduct and the period spent in custody as an undertrial could be used to reduce the 25-year period that India had undertaken to observe under the extradition arrangement.

    Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra, appearing for Salem, had argued that the period spent in custody before conviction should receive credit towards his sentence, particularly because the TADA court had directed that such custody be set off against the sentence. He further submitted that remission earned for good conduct should also be counted when determining the period of actual imprisonment.

    Malhotra sought to distinguish earned remission from statutory remission under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the argument, Salem was not asking the court to grant him ordinary statutory remission, but was instead seeking recognition of remission that he had already earned through good conduct while in prison.

    The defence also relied on the Supreme Court's earlier ruling in Swamy Shraddananda alias Murali Manohar v. State of Karnataka. The argument was that remission earned through good conduct, including remission associated with monthly, quarterly or yearly conduct and assigned prison duties, could form part of the calculation of the period of imprisonment.

    Salem's lawyers claimed that he had earned approximately three years and two months of remission for good conduct. They also pointed to instances involving other prisoners who, according to the defence, had been released after remission was taken into consideration.

    The legal challenge arose after the Bombay High Court rejected Salem's request for premature release in April 2025. The High Court concluded that the 25-year period contemplated under the extradition arrangement had not yet been completed and would expire only in November 2030.

    The High Court also rejected Salem's contention that earned remission could be used to bring forward the date on which the 25-year limit would expire. It held that the 25-year period was not an ordinary fixed-term sentence that could be further reduced through prison remission rules.

    Click here to Read More
    • Share:
    US DHS ‘Self-Deport’ Advertisement Targeting ‘Mr Singh’ Sparks Controversy
    Previous Article
    US DHS ‘Self-Deport’ Advertisement Targeting ‘Mr Singh’ Sparks Controversy
    Next Article
    Delhi High Court Suggests CJP Leaders Remove Posts Targeting Gaurav Bhatia Amid Defamation Dispute
    Delhi High Court Suggests CJP Leaders Remove Posts Targeting Gaurav Bhatia Amid Defamation Dispute

    Related National Updates:

    Are you sure? You want to delete this comment..! Remove Cancel

    Comments (0)

      Leave a comment

      Send