Supreme Court dismisses gangster Abu Salem’s plea claiming completion of 25-year prison term

In the blasts case, Abu Salem was found guilty of transporting weapons from Gujarat to Mumbai for use in the serial bombings, which killed 257 people and left more than 700 seriously injured. File | Photo Credit: PTI

A former member of underworld don Dawood Ibrahim’s syndicate, Mr. Salem was extradited from Portugal to India in 2005 after the Indian government gave a sovereign assurance that he would not be imprisoned for more than 25 years.

He was sentenced to life imprisonment in February 2015 by a special Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) court for the 1995 murder of Mumbai businessman Pradeep Jain and his driver Mehndi. In June 2017, he was awarded another life term for his role in the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts.

In the blasts case, Mr. Salem was found guilty of transporting weapons from Gujarat to Mumbai for use in the serial bombings, which killed 257 people and left more than 700 seriously injured.

In July 2022, the Supreme Court held that India was bound by the sovereign assurance given to Portugal and that Mr. Salem could not be detained beyond 25 years.

The dispute before the court centred on when this 25-year period began. The Centre has maintained that it commenced on November 11, 2005, when Mr. Salem was extradited from Portugal to face trial in multiple cases, and would therefore expire in November 2030.

It has also pointed out that Mr. Salem was initially detained in Portugal in connection with a passport-related offence and that his detention at the time was unrelated to the crimes for which India subsequently secured his extradition.

Mr. Salem, on the other hand, has argued that the 25-year period should run from September 18, 2002, when he was taken into custody in Portugal following a Red Corner Notice issued by Interpol at India’s instance.

Senior advocate Rishi Malhotra, appearing for Mr. Salem, had argued that the period of incarceration should include the time he spent as an undertrial and that remission earned in prison should also be taken into account while determining the duration of his sentence.

Mr. Malhotra had further pointed out that the High Court had not decided which of Mr. Salem’s convictions should form the basis for determining when the 25-year term began.

During an earlier hearing, however, the Bench had expressed doubts over Mr. Salem’s contention that he had already completed the 25-year term.

“Even by simple calculation, from your date of incarceration on November 11, 2005, you have not completed 25 years,” the Bench had observed.