In a huge relief for Bollywood actor Salman Khan, the Bombay High Court suspended his sentence in the 2002 hit-and-run case, admitted his appeal against conviction and granted him bail, pending the hearing and disposal of the appeal. As directed by the High Court, a relaxed Salman drove down to Sessions Court in south Mumbai from his Galaxy Apartment at Bandra later in the afternoon, surrendered before the lower court and executed a fresh bail bond of Rs30,000.
For at least three hours in the morning, there was perceptible anxiety among scores of Salman’s supporters, who had gathered outside the actor’s Bandra residence. Their anxiety was triggered by the apprehension that the High Court might not extend his bail pending the admission of his appeal against his conviction in the hit-and-run case, a prospect would mean that Salman would head for jail to serve the five years’ rigorous imprisonment handed out to him by the trial court on Wednesday.
However, the actor’s fans erupted into jubilation after word reached them from the High Court that Justice Thipsay had suspended Salman’s sentence and granted him bail, pending the hearing and final disposal of his appeal against his conviction in the 2002 hit-and-run case.
Earlier, while admitting the actor’s appeal against his conviction in the much-discussed hit-and-run case and granting him bail against a cash deposit of Rs30,000, Jusice Abhay Thipsay of the High Court observed: “This is not a case where in spite of the admission of the appeal, the appellant (Salman Khan) should be kept in detention till the appeal is decided. It would be proper to suspend the sentence during the pendency of the appeal”.
Maintaining that the actor’s plea would be expeditiously heard, the judge posted the hearing of Salman’s appeal against his conviction for June 15. “It is decided by consent, that the appeal shall be heard finally, as far as possible, in the month of July 2015,” Judge Thipsay noted.Justice Thipsay directed the actor — whose passport is lying with the police — to seek court’s permission before travelling abroad.Reasoning his decision to grant bail to the actor during the pendency of his appeal, the judge said: “The applicant was on bail throughout the trial. Even after the addition of the charge of an offence punishable under Section 304(II) of the IPC, his liberty was not disturbed. The applicant is not likely to abscond, if released on bail during the pendency of the appeal - and there is not even a suggestion to that effect.”
“There are a number of arguable points raised about whether or not Khan was driving the car. It is also nobody’s case that Khan will abscond if he released on bail, pending appeal,” Justice Thipsay said. The reprieve for the beleaguered actor came from the High Court after his lawyer Amit Desai argued that the Prosecution had not made out a case against Salman under Section 304 (Part-II) of the IPC for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, that the evidence adduced by the Prosecution during the trial that the actor was driving the car “is not satisfactory”, that the evidence to suggest the accident occurred due to the bursting of tyre had not been considered by the trial court judge and that the Prosecution had not satisfactorily proved that the actor was under the influence of alcohol.
Significantly enough, Desai made the most the Prosecution’s contention that there were four persons in the actor’s car (that rammed into a bakery and laundry at Bandra on the intervening night of September 27-28, 2002) to point out lacunae in the presentation of facts by the Prosecution during the trial, especially its failure to examine the actor’s singer-friend and eyewitness to the incident Kamaal Khan.
“The Prosecution’s case revealed that at the material time, there were four persons in the vehicle, but the Prosecution did not throw on as to who the fourth person was. It is also submitted that one Kamaal Khan was admittedly present in the vehicle at the material time, and therefore a material witness, but was not examined,” Desai told the High Court, as he stressed that his client Salman had a good case to contest his conviction in the case.
Alluding to the Prosecution’s opposition to the convicted actor being granted bail, the judge observed: “Normally, in such cases, the State does not oppose the suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal in case of an accused who is on bail during the trial. However, in view of the fact that in this case, some opposition has been offered, I have considered the possibility of directing the appeal to be expeditiously heard,” the judge said.
“Neither the learned Public Prosecutor nor the learned counsel for the appellant has any objection to stipulate that the appeal shall be heard decided expeditiously,” the judge said. Earlier, Government pleader Sandeep Shinde did not oppose the admission of the appeal filed by the actor. He objected to suspension of Salman’s sentence. Shinde argued that Salman had knowledge of consequences of rash and negligent and drunken driving. “Therefore, the trial court has rightly convicted the actor under the charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder,” the Government pleader said.
Shinde said the actor’s blood test revealed there was alcohol content above the permissible limit. On the Prosecution’s decision not to call Kamaal Khan for examination during the trial, Shinde said: “The police recorded Kamaal Khan’s statement during the investigation. He was, however, not available to them for examination before the trial court as he was a UK national”. Refuting the defence claim of four persons travelling in the vehicle, Shinde said the theory of Ashok Singh being at the wheel was introduced at the fag-end of the trial when Khan made a statement under Section 313 of CrPC and termed it as an “afterthought”.