Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim directions issued: respondents, including Union of India, to address the contention that the petitioner's 25-year sentence expired on 31 March 2025 and to file reply affidavits before the adjourned date with advance copies to the petitioner's counsel; hearing stood over to 29 April 2025 at 02.30 p.m.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is correct in contending that his 25 years of sentence, computed from the commencement of detention on 12 October 2005 as directed by the Supreme Court, expired on 31 March 2025.

Court's answer

Taking the Supreme Court's observation that the petitioner's detention would commence from 12 October 2005, the respondents are required to address the issue whether the petitioner is correct that his 25 years of sentence expired on 31 March 2025.

Ratio / Principle

The respondents, including Union of India, are to file reply affidavits to the petition on or before the adjourned date of hearing, with copies furnished to the petitioner's advocate and the parties well in advance.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction — Writ Petition No. 1586 of 2025, Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Coram: G. S. Kulkarni & Advait M. Sethna, JJ.; 8 April 2025) — Interim order. Proceedings were listed before an alternate Bench; earlier co-ordinate Bench orders had impleaded Union of India as respondent in view of paragraph 54 of the Supreme Court's decision dated 11 July 2022 in Criminal Appeal No. 679 of 2015 (the petitioner's appeal), whereby detention was held to commence from 12.10.2005, and on completion of 25 years' sentence the Central Government is bound to advise the President of India for exercise of powers under Article 72 of the Constitution and may itself act under Sections 432 and 433 of the Cr. P.C. within one month. The Court directed the respondents, including Union of India, to address the petitioner's contention that his 25 years of sentence expired on 31 March 2025, to file reply affidavits before the adjourned date with advance copies to the petitioner's counsel, and stood the matter over to 29 April 2025.

902-wp 1586-25.doc

Prajakta Vartak

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 1586 OF 2025

Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

...Petitioner

...Respondents

Ms. Farhana Shah for the Petitioner.

Mr. Hiten Venegaonkar, PP with Mr. M. M. Deshmukh, APP for State. Mr. Shreeram Shirsat with Mr. Shekhar Mane for Respondent No.4/UOI.

Digitally signed by PRAJAKTASAGAR PRAJAKTASAGARVARTAK VARTAK Date: 2025.04.08 18:02:51 +0530

CORAM : G. S. KULKARNI & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ. DATE : 08 APRIL 2025

P.C.:

The proceedings are listed before us as an alternate Bench. We find from the earlier orders passed by a co-ordinate Bench that Union of India was directed to be impleaded as a party respondent, more particularly in view of the following observations of the Supreme Court in paragraph 54 of its decision dated 11 July 2022 in Criminal Appeal No. 679 of 2015 filed by the petitioner:-

“54. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we conclude that the detention of the appellant commence from 12.10.2005 in the present case. On the appellant completing 25 years of sentence, the Central Government is bound to advice the President of India for exercise of his powers under Article 72 of the Constitution, and to release the appellant in terms of the national commitment as well as the principle based on comity of courts. In view thereof, the necessary papers be forwarded within

Page 1 of 2 08 April 2025

902-wp 1586-25.doc

a month of the period of completion of 25 years sentence of the appellant. In fact, the Government can itself exercise this power in terms of Sections 432 and 433 of the Cr. P.C. and such an exercise should also take place within the same time period of one month.”

In terms of what has been observed by the Supreme Court, that the detention of the petitioner would commence from 12 October 2005, the respondents need to address the issue as to whether the petitioner is correct in raising a contention that his 25 years of sentence expired on 31 March 2025.

Let the respondents including Union of India file reply affidavit to the petition on or before the adjourned date of hearing, however, copy of the same be furnished to the advocate for the petitioner and the parties well in advance.

Stand over to 29 April 2025 at 02.30 p.m.

[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [G. S. KULKARNI, J.]

Page 2 of 2 08 April 2025