Supreme Court Reserves Order on Abu Salem Plea for Premature Release
The Supreme Court on Monday reserved its order on 1993 Mumbai serial blasts convict Abu Salem's plea seeking premature release, after hearing arguments on whether his undertrial custody period and prison remission should count toward the 25-year imprisonment limit under India's extradition assurances to Portugal. Salem, who is serving a life sentence, is currently lodged at Nashik Road Central Prison following his conviction in the Mumbai blasts case.
Appearing for Abu Salem, senior advocate Rishi Malhotra argued before a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta that Salem completed his 25-year sentence on December 24, 2024, under the terms of his extradition. Malhotra stated that prison authorities had failed to credit the time Salem spent in custody as an undertrial, despite a specific direction previously issued by the special TADA court.
During the proceedings, the bench verbally asked Malhotra whether he was seeking a detailed judgment or a dismissal simpliciter. The Supreme Court then reserved its order while permitting the parties involved to file written submissions and supporting judgments within one week.
In his petition, Salem calculated his total period in custody by combining nearly 11 years and 10 months spent as an undertrial, nearly 10 years served as a convict, and more than three years of prison remission earned for good conduct. The Supreme Court had earlier declined to grant him interim relief but permitted him to approach the Bombay High Court after a special TADA court rejected his request for early release.
In related court proceedings, the Central Bureau of Investigation told the special TADA court that Salem is required to pay fines amounting to Rs 16.51 lakh from two prior convictions before the expiration of his 25-year period. The probe agency stated that the fine was mandatory and must be deposited in the court registry before October 12, 2030, to avoid serving additional default sentences. Salem had approached the special court seeking clarity on whether paying the fines was obligatory.
