The Bombay High Court on Monday observed that gangster Abu Salem, convicted in the 1993 Bombay blasts, has not yet completed the 25-year sentence limit mandated under his extradition terms from Portugal.

The division bench of Justices AS Gadkari and Rajesh S Patil made the observation while hearing Salem’s plea for premature release, in which he claimed to have already served the maximum sentence permitted by the extradition agreement.

While admitting his petition, the Court declined to grant any interim relief, citing the 2022 Supreme Court ruling which capped Salem’s incarceration at 25 years. “As per the Supreme Court judgment, the date of arrest is recorded as October 12, 2005. On completion of 25 years of incarceration, the central government is bound to exercise the powers of remission and release the applicant. Prima facie, it is clear that the 25 years of incarceration is yet to be completed,” the bench stated.

Salem had earlier approached the special TADA court in Mumbai with a similar application, which was rejected on December 10, 2024.

Appearing for Salem, Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra argued that the gangster had effectively served over 25 years if various periods of custody were considered cumulatively. He cited nearly 12 years spent as an undertrial (from November 2005 to September 2017), around 10 years as a convict (from February 2015 to December 2024 in another TADA case), along with 3 years and 16 days of remission for good conduct and an additional one-month credit granted by the Supreme Court for time spent in Portugal custody.

The Centre, however, contested this interpretation. Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh argued that Salem was attempting to combine periods from separate cases — both undertrial and conviction — to meet the 25-year cap, which was impermissible.

Singh also contended that since the issue pertained to the interpretation of the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision, the matter should be taken up with the apex court itself.

The High Court appeared to agree with the Centre’s stand, noting, “We reckon that your date of arrest is October 2005. According to it, 25 years is yet to be completed.”

When Malhotra challenged this calculation, the bench retorted, “Are you saying that the Supreme Court order is wrong? Even applying simple logic, 25 years is yet to be completed.”