Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 3677

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
A. S. Gadkari, Kamal Khata, JJ
Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.1586 OF 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rishi Malhotra, Farhana Sahah, Shivaansh Maini, Darshana Gurjar, Yatish Desale, Ansuiya
For the Respondents: M. M. Deshmukh, Kuldeep Patil, Saili Dhuru, Anay Joshi, Digviajy Kachare, Sumitkumar Nimbalkar, Sanika Joshi, Anil C. Singh, Aditya Thakkar, D. P. Singh, Ayush Kedia, Krishnakant Deshmukh

A fixed-term sentence imposed pursuant to a sovereign international assurance constitutes a substantive constraint that is immune to reduction via administrative jail-earned remissions, as such remissions are incompatible with the specific legal framework and intent governing the sovereign commitment.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 432 and 433 - Constitution of India - Article 72 - Indian Extradition Act, 1962 - Life imprisonment - Commutation - Sovereign assurance - Fixed-term sentence - Premature release - Earned remission - Interpretation of fixed-term incarceration - Effect of sovereign international treaties on prison remission rules - Whether 25-year fixed sentence is subject to reduction via administrative jail remissions. (Paras 1, 4, 15, 17, 26)

(B) Sentencing - Fixed-term sentence - A sentence imposed pursuant to a sovereign assurance in an international extradition context operates as a substantive fixed ceiling that cannot be curtailed by administrative jail-earned remissions or statutory remissions - Such administrative remissions apply to ordinary life sentences and are conceptually distinct from a court-mandated fixed term arising from specific executive commitments - The executive's role in reviewing such sentences is strictly confined to the parameters set by the court of last resort. (Paras 18, 25, 29, 30)

Facts of the case:
A prisoner, convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in two criminal cases, had his sentence commuted to a 25-year fixed term by the apex court due to a sovereign assurance granted to a foreign nation. The petitioner sought an immediate release, claiming that his pre-trial detention combined with post-conviction imprisonment and earned good-conduct remissions exceeded the 25-year threshold. The prisoner challenged the authorities' refusal to calculate the remission toward shortening this fixed-term duration.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the 25-year sentence constitutes a binding, fixed ceiling mandated by the integrity of an international sovereign assurance. Administrative prison rules regarding good-conduct remissions are inapplicable to this fixed constraint, as they would effectively shorten the substantive duration prescribed by the apex court. The duty of the state to consider remission under statutory powers only ripens within a specific window prior to the completion of the aggregate 25 years.

Issues: Whether a prisoner is entitled to apply administrative prison remissions to reduce a fixed-term sentence derived from a sovereign international treaty assurance.

Ratio Decidendi: A sentence imposed as a result of a specific sovereign promise functions as a substantive limit, overriding standard prison remission policies. Because the 25-year duration is a fixed mandate, administrative remissions, which are typically used to mitigate indeterminate life sentences, cannot be applied to reduce the quantum of time stipulated in the sovereign commitment.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual history of extradition, conviction, and supreme court's sentence commutation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. dispute on whether 25-year fixed sentence is liable to reduction via earned remissions. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. defined 25-year term is a substantive sentence not subject to prison rule remissions. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
4. sovereign assurance prevails; standard jail remissions cannot curtail judicially mandated capped terms. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
5. petition is premature; 25-year sentence must be completed as prescribed. (Para 30 , 31 , 32)

JUDGMENT (PER : KAMAL KHATA, J.) :

1) By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus and/or Writ of Mandamus directing his release from custody on the ground that, he has completed the maximum sentence of 25 years, computed by taking into account his undertrial detention, post-conviction incarceration and earned jail remissions.

2) The Petitioner was extradited from Portugal and brought to India in November, 2005. He was arrested and produced before the TADA Court on 11th November, 2005 in connection with the Bombay Bomb Blast Case (TADA Special Case No.1B of 1993). He was under further arrest from 24th November 2005 in connection with C.R. No 144/1995 (TADA Spl. Case No. 1 of 2006).

3) The Petitioner faced trial in both cases. He was convicted on 25th February, 2015 in TADA Case No.1 of 2006 and sentenced to life imprisonment. He was also convicted on 7th September, 2017 in TADA Case No. 1B of 1993 and sentenced to life imprisonment. Both sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

4) The Petitioner challenged his convictions before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. By Judgment dated 11th July, 2022, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while upholding the convictions, in view of the solemn sovereign assurance dated 17th December, 2002 given by the Government of India to the Government of Portugal, commuted the life sentences to a total sentence of 25 years, with directions to the Government to consider remission under Sections 432 and 433 of the Cr.P.C. to ensure the sentence is brought in conformity with the sovereign assurance given to the Government of Portugal. Crucially, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that, this exercise be undertaken one month prior to the completion of the 25-year period.

5) The Petitioner thereafter, approached the TADA Court seeking set-off of his undertrial period in BBC Case No. 1-B/1993. By an Order dated 29th June, 2024, the TADA Court allowed the Petitioner’s plea and granted set off of the period from 11th November, 2005 to 7th September, 2017 being a period calculated from the date of arrest until the date of final Judgment.

6) Thereafter, the Petitioner was transferred from Taloja Central Prison to Nashik Road Central Prison. The Petitioner, pursuant to the Order dated 11th July, 2022, applied for determination of his date of release. By Order dated 10th December, 2024, the TADA Court rejected the Petitioner’s application.

7) Aggrieved thereby, the present Petition has been filed.

8) The short question that arises for determination is whether the Petitioner is entitled to reduction of the 25 years sentence on account of earned remission and set-off.

9) Mr. Malhotra, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner strongly contended that, sentence imposed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is a fixed term sentence of 25 years inclusive of undertrial detention, post- conviction imprisonment and earned remission.

10) He places on record the following computation of the Petitioner sentence:

a) Undertrial Period: From 11th November 2005 to 7th September 2017, totaling 11 years, 9 months and 26 days.

b) Post-conviction Period: From 25th February, 2015 to 27th February, 2024, approximately 9 years and 3 days.

c) Earned Remissions: As per the Jail Remission Register No. 6, the Petitioner claims to have earned 2 years, 9 months, and 29 da

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 3677

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAYA. S. Gadkari, Kamal Khata, JJAbu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari – AppellantVersusState Of Maharashtra – RespondentWRIT PETITION NO.1586 OF 2025

Cases Referred (4)

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
A. S. Gadkari, Kamal Khata, JJ
Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.1586 OF 2025