MUMBAI, April 16 -- The Bombay High Court on Wednesday rejected incarcerated gangster Abu Salem's plea seeking immediate release from jail on grounds of having completed 25 years of imprisonment, saying his attempt to include "earned remissions" to shorten the 25-year term was legally unsustainable. The jailed gangster was "not entitled to any reduction of sentence" and he would actually complete 25 years in jail on November 10, 2030, after which he would be released, a division bench of justices AS Gadkari and Kamal Khata clarified. Salem, convicted for his role in the 1993 serial blasts in Mumbai which killed 257 people, was extradited from Portugal on November 11, 2005, following the Indian government's solemn assurance that his prison term would not exceed 25 years. The jailed gangster was charged with delivering a consignment of arms and ammunition to various places in the city, including the house of Bollywood actor Sanjay Dutt, two months prior to the 12 serial blasts on March 12, 1993. He fled India after the blasts under a fake passport and was detained in Lisbon, Portugal, on September 18, 2002. The gangster was extradited to India following a long-drawn legal battle. On September 7, 2017, Salem was sentenced to life imprisonment by a special Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) court. Following his appeal, the Supreme Court on July 13, 2022 commuted his sentence to 25 years of imprisonment, making it commensurate with India's solemn assurance to Portugal. The 64-year-old gangster approached the high court after the special TADA court on December 10, 2024 rejected his plea for fixing the date of his release in line with the July 13, 2022 apex court order. In his petition filed through advocate Farhana Shah, Salem stated that the Supreme Court had upheld his plea regarding his prison term not exceeding 25 years. His counsel, senior advocate Rishi Malhotra, claimed that he had completed 25 years in jail on March 31, 2025, including the period of pre-trial detention and earned remissions of more than three years, under prevailing prison rules. The central government contested the claim, saying he had served only 19 years and six months in jail as of March 2025 and the calculation arrived at by him was not correct. Additional solicitor general Anil Singh argued that the 25-year period specified by the Supreme Court referred to actual incarceration and not a notional period liable to reduction by earned remissions. Salem's prison term would end only in 2030, Singh said. The high court accepted Singh's arguments, saying the 25-year term "constituted a substantive sentence" which the petitioner was required to undergo; it was not a ceiling capable of reduction by application of ordinary prison remissions. Salem's attempt to include "earned remissions" to shorten the 25-year jail term was legally unsustainable, as the apex court had explicitly stated that there was no question of granting special privileges, the judges said. "The 25-year limit itself functions as a massive remission from a life sentence, necessitated by international treaty obligations. To allow further ordinary jail remissions to reduce this already capped 25-year period would violate the spirit of the Supreme Court's directions," the court said. Since the 25-year term would end on November 10, 2030, Salem's application seeking release was clearly misconceived, the court ruled, dismissing the plea....