Supreme Court Reserves Judgment on Abu Salem's Release Petition

The Supreme Court has reserved its judgment on gangster Abu Salem's petition for release, claiming he has completed 25 years in prison. Salem's legal team argues that he is entitled to release based on the terms of his extradition from Portugal. The court's decision follows a challenge to a Bombay High Court ruling that dismissed his request. Salem, convicted for his role in the 1993 Mumbai bombings, has received remission for good behavior. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for his future.

By Narendra Chaudhary Jul 27, 2026, 16:01 IST

Supreme Court Decision on Abu Salem's Petition

New Delhi, July 27 - The Supreme Court has decided to reserve its judgment regarding the petition filed by gangster Abu Salem, who is seeking his release. Salem claims in his petition that he has completed 25 years in prison in India, as stipulated in the terms of his extradition from Portugal.

The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, was hearing Salem's petition challenging an order from the Bombay High Court issued in April.

In his petition, Salem argued that his request for immediate release was dismissed on the grounds of being 'premature' and 'based on incorrect premises.' Salem, who was convicted for his involvement in the 1993 Mumbai bombings, was extradited from Portugal on November 11, 2005, following a prolonged legal battle. According to the terms of extradition between India and Portugal, Salem cannot be sentenced to death and may face a maximum of 25 years in prison.

During the hearing on Monday, the Supreme Court bench questioned Salem's lawyer, asking, 'How have you (Salem) completed 25 years?' In response, the lawyer stated that Salem has received over two years and nine months of remission for good behavior. He further explained that the time spent in custody during the trial and after sentencing is included in the total duration of his imprisonment, along with the remission granted for good conduct.

The bench then inquired whether the lawyer preferred a detailed judgment or a direct dismissal of the case. The lawyer indicated a preference for a detailed ruling. Subsequently, the bench remarked, 'The decision is reserved.'