Salem's plea for premature release under consideration: Maha govt tells HC
A DECISION on the premature release of gangster Abu Salem, currently serving prison term for the 1993 Bombay bomb blasts, is under consideration before the state government and will be decided shortly, the Bombay High Court was informed on Wednesday.
Salem was extradited from Portugal in 2005 and an assurance was given to the Portugal authorities that he will not be given the death sentence or a prison term beyond 25 years. Salem has filed a petition before the high court seeking clarity on his release date, stating that he is entitled to benefits like remission meant for early release for prisoners. The state Home department and the Maharashtra prison department on Wednesday submitted affidavits to the court in response to Salem's plea. Both the affidavits state that Salem has completed over 19 years in jail, counting his arrest from the time of his extradition to India in November 2005.
'The period of 25 years of the imprisonment of the prisoner is not completed till date. Hence, the final date of completion of 25 years of petitioner/prisoner will be decided after the reception of the decision on the premature release of the petitioner by the Home Department, state of Maharashtra,' the affidavit filed by Suhas Warke, Additional Director General of Police and Inspector General of Prisons and Correctional Services, said. The affidavit adds that Salem's history is not a 'palatable one', and that he has committed many offences in India.
The affidavit filed by Sugriv Dhapate, joint secretary of the Home department, also said that Salem's actual imprisonment is over 19 years. 'It is further submitted that the proposal of premature release of the petitioner is under consideration of the government and will be decided shortly,' the affidavit states. The proposal for Salem's premature release is under consideration under Rule 25 (iii) of the Maharashtra Prison Manual. The proposal includes the opinion of the advisory board, the concerned court which had convicted Salem, a report from the police, district magistrate, along with a recommendation from the prison department. The affidavit states that Salem is recommended to be in the category of 50 years imprisonment, and if his remission is calculated in the category, his release date would be in 2046, which is beyond the 25 years' assurance.
Both the affidavits have also referred to a previous Supreme Court order on an appeal filed by Salem. The Supreme Court in 2022 said that honouring the period of 25 years as assured, will arise only when the 25 years' term is completed, mentioning November 10, 2030, as the date of completion. The court had then said that such a plea on his release cannot be raised before the period lapses.
Salem was sentenced to life imprisonment in two cases-in 2015 for the murder of Pradeep Jain, a builder in Mumbai, and in 2017 for the 1993 Bombay blasts case. Salem had filed a similar plea in the special court in Mumbai, seeking clarity on his release date, which the CBI had said was premature, since he is yet to complete 25 years in jail.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
36 minutes ago
- News18
'Undermines Autonomy Of Legal Profession': SC On Cops Summoning Lawyers Over Client Advice
Last Updated: The SC said allowing police or probe agencies to directly summon lawyers for advising clients was a "direct threat" to the independence of justice administration The Supreme Court on Wednesday raised concerns over the probe agencies and police being allowed to summon lawyers for advising clients. It said this can have a 'chilling effect" and would seriously undermine the autonomy of the legal profession. Observing this was a 'direct threat" to the independence of justice administration, a bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh explained how the legal profession was an integral component of the process of administration of justice. 'Permitting the investigating agencies/police to directly summon defense counsel or advocates who advise parties in a given case would seriously undermine the autonomy of legal profession and would even constitute a direct threat to the independence of the administration of justice," the bench said. The order came when the court was hearing a plea of a Gujarat-based advocate, challenging an order of the high court passed on June 12. The bench framed a couple of questions in the matter and said it directly impinged on the administration of justice 'to subject a professional… when he is a counsel in the matter… prima facie appears to be untenable, subject to further consideration by the court". 'Some of the questions which arise for consideration are: (1) when an individual has a association with a case only as a lawyer advising the party, could the investigating agency/prosecuting agency/police directly summon the lawyer for questioning?" the bench asked. 'Assuming that the investigating agency or prosecuting agency or police have a case that role of the individual is not merely as a lawyer but something more, even then, should they be directly permitted to summon or should a judicial oversight be prescribed for those exceptional criteria?" The bench further said 'what is at stake is the efficacy of the administration of justice and the capacity of the lawyers to conscientiously, and more importantly, fearlessly discharge their professional duties". WHAT IS THE SC ORDER? The SC was hearing a plea of a Gujarat-based advocate, challenging an order of the high court passed on June 12. The high court had refused to quash a notice summoning the lawyer before the police in a case against his client. The top court, however, directed the state not to summon him till further orders and stayed the operation of the police's notice issued to him. The bench also issued notice to the Gujarat government, asking for its response. It noted an agreement was executed in June last year between two persons in a loan transaction. In February, one of them got an FIR registered against the other following which the accused was arrested. The court noted the petitioner before it was engaged as a lawyer by the accused and he moved a bail application on behalf of his client before a sessions court in Ahmedabad. The accused was granted bail. But, a police notice in March summoned the lawyer to appear before police within three days. WHY IS THIS SIGNIFICANT? The issue assumes significance as the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on June 20 directed its investigating officers not to issue summons to any advocate in a money laundering investigation being carried out against their client, adding that exception to this rule could only be made after 'approval" by the agency's director. The ED's statement came in the wake of the lawyer-client privilege linked controversy stemming from its summons to senior SC lawyers Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal. The counsel had offered legal advice to Care Health Insurance Limited (CHIL) on the employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) given to Rashmi Saluja, former chairperson of Religare Enterprises. The summons were condemned by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA), calling it a 'disturbing trend" that struck at the very foundations of the legal profession. The bar bodies urged the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to take suo motu cognisance of the matter. Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: June 25, 2025, 21:57 IST News india 'Undermines Autonomy Of Legal Profession': SC On Cops Summoning Lawyers Over Client Advice
Mint
37 minutes ago
- Mint
Debris everywhere! Illegal buildings demolished in Maharashtra's Mumbra after court order
Following the Bombay High Court's order, illegal buildings were demolished in the Mumbra area of Maharashtra's Thane on Wednesday, June 25. As many as 17 illegal buildings were demolished by the Thane Municipal Corporation in the Mumbra area today. As seen in the video posted on social media, a large chunk of at least two of the multi-storey buildings was demolished during the drive. Several other buildings were razed to the ground. Heavy police arrangements could also be seen at the demolition site. This demolition is part of a broader legal battle. The Supreme Court recently dismissed a special leave petition challenging the Bombay High Court's interim order to proceed with the demolition, noting the involvement of builders with alleged links to the underworld. This underscores the severity of the issue. Unoccupied buildings and those still under construction were among the primary targets for demolition, TMC deputy commissioner (encroachment) Shankar Patole said. Wednesday's demolition drive was in line with the directives of the Bombay High Court. Earlier on Monday, 30 illegal structures were demolished in nine administrative wards in Thane, including Naupada-Kopri, Diva, Mumbra, Kalwa, Uthalsar, Majivda-Manpada, Vartak Nagar, Lokmanya Nagar and Wagle Estate. An official said that 13 of the 17 illegal buildings identified in Diva ward have now been demolished. Two more buildings were brought down on Sunday amidst some local resistance, prompting authorities to carry out the operation under full police protection. A case was also registered under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act for an unauthorised structure in the Lokmanya Nagar-Savarkar Nagar ward. "The action is part of a continuing drive to identify and remove illegal structures in all nine ward committees. The drive targeted a wide range of illegal construction activities, ranging from complete buildings and column erections to plinth works and additional structures," the official said. Earlier, 33 structures were demolished, taking the total to 63, he said. Thane Municipal Corporation said in a release that as beat inspectors continue surveys and field verification, more demolitions may follow in the coming weeks.
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
Court fines independent candidate for wrongly challenging Sena MLA's election
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday directed an independent candidate who contested last year's Maharashtra Assembly elections from Mumbai's Jogeshwari East seat to deposit Rs 3,50,000 in court as security of costs incurred by the Shiv Sena UBT candidate against whom he filed a petition, challenging his candidate Rohan Satone, who sought the election of Anant B Nar be declared void, has been directed to deposit the amount within two won the 2024 elections after he polled 77,044 votes and defeated his nearest rival, Manisha Waikar of the Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde), by a margin of 1,541 votes. Petitioner Satone was among the candidates contesting the elections, who filed a petition on January 4, following which notices were served to other candidates. Over the course of the hearing, advocate Amit Karande, appearing for Nar, pointed out basic errors in the petition, saying it did not seek the declaration of the returned candidate to be void but that of Waikar, who had lost the election."Moreover, the petition was not even in the prescribed format, such as an Election petition is mandatorily required to be accompanied by as many copies as there are respondents mentioned in the petition and every such copy has to be attested by the petitioner to be a true copy," he the submission of these arguments in court, no lawyer appeared for Satone. His erstwhile lawyer informed the court that the Vakalatnama had been withdrawn by Satone. Taking note of the "awkward situation", the bench of Justice Abhay Ahuja, on April 21, granted time to the petitioner to make sure a lawyer appears on the next on the next date, on April 28, a lawyer's visiting card was put forth with the submission that the lawyer is going through the papers. The bench said that this kind of practice was "unheard of" and deprecated court then directed a new lawyer's Vakalatnama to be filed within two weeks. Meanwhile, Karande requested the court to impose costs on the petitioner as Nar was entitled to costs incurred by him in contesting the June 9, advocate Sholden D'Souza appeared for Satone and sought two weeks' time, arguing he had just been handed over the opposed it as the Vakalatnama had been filed by the lawyer on May June 23, another lawyer, Surbhi Agarwal, appeared for Satone, and while arguing, also sought leniency from court in withdrawing the Election court then considered Karande's application for costs and saw that Nar had incurred Rs 3,50,000 as fees towards his counsel, and asked Satone to pay the same.- EndsMust Watch
