The Bombay High Court has directed the Maharashtra government to file its response to a plea by convicted gangster Abu Salem, seeking an emergency parole of 14 days following the death of his elder brother. Salem is serving a life sentence for his role in the devastating 1993 Mumbai serial blasts.
Court Questions Delay in Filing Plea
A bench comprising Justices Ajey S Gadkari and Shyam C Chandak heard the plea on Tuesday. Salem's lawyer, Advocate Farhana Shah, informed the court that her client's elder brother, Abu Hakim Ansari, passed away in November 2025, and requested urgent parole leave for the grieving period.
The bench, however, questioned the timing of the application, which was filed on December 19. The judges pointed out that the conventional 14-day mourning period had already concluded. Advocate Shah attributed the delay to the recent Christmas vacation observed by the court.
Hearing Adjourned to January
Representing the state, in-charge Chief Public Prosecutor Mankunwar Deshmukh requested time to take instructions from the concerned officials. Accepting the request, the High Court granted the government time to file its reply and scheduled the next hearing for January 13, 2026.
Abu Salem was arrested on November 24, 2005, and was later convicted in the 1993 blasts case in September 2017. His legal battles have continued post-conviction, focusing on his potential release.
The 25-Year Remission Debate
A significant aspect of Salem's incarceration is linked to an extradition treaty between India and Portugal. The Supreme Court, in a July 2022 observation, noted that the central government is bound to advise the President to grant remission to Salem after he completes 25 years in prison. This is based on a sovereign assurance given to Portugal at the time of his extradition.
Last year, Salem filed a separate plea seeking remission of his sentence and premature release, claiming he had served nearly 25 years as per the treaty terms. However, in an order dated July 7, 2025, the Bombay High Court prima facie observed that the stipulated period, including pre-trial detention, was yet to be completed. The court had then sought a response from jail authorities and denied any interim relief. That plea has not been heard since.
The current parole plea adds another chapter to the ongoing legal proceedings surrounding one of the most high-profile convicts in India's history.
