The Bombay High Court on Tuesday dismissed two applications seeking cancellation of Bollywood actor Salman Khan’s bail and enhancement of five-year jail term awarded to him in the 2002 hit-and-run case.
The applications were filed by Sushilabai Patil, mother of late Ravindra Patil, the complainant in the case and Salman’s ex-police bodyguard who passed away during the trial.
In another development, the Court on Tuesday fixed the hearing of the actor’s appeal against conviction on a daily basis from September 21.
Justice A R Joshi rejected Patil’s application seeking cancellation of Salman’s bail and enhancement of punishment awarded to him on the ground that the applicant had earlier also made a similar plea and the HC had rejected it on the ground that she had no locus standi.
The applicant urged that Salman was convicted earlier by a Rajasthan court in black buck killing case and this was not communicated to the Mumbai Magistrate who granted him bail in the 2002 hit-and-run case after adding the charge of ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’ under IPC.
Hence, his bail should be cancelled because a convict cannot get liberty in any other case, Patil’s lawyer Manohar Sharma argued.
It was on the basis of Ravindra Patil’s complaint that Salman was booked in the case. Patil had told police that the actor was driving the car on September 28, 2002, when it rammed into a shop in suburban Bandra killing one person and injuring four others who were sleeping outside.
He had also alleged that Salman was under the influence of liquor.
Salman’s lawyer, Amit Desai, once again, objected to the paper-book saying that some documents were still missing, following which the court allowed the defence team and prosecution to sit together and inspect the records and proceedings of the case.
The court also asked the defence and the prosecution to place the ‘missing’ documents before it on the next occasion so that it could consider adding them in the paper-book.
Paper-book is a compilation of evidence, documents and the lower court’s orders/verdict, prepared by the HC registry.
It is given to both the sides when appeal is heard.
Justice A R Joshi is hearing an appeal filed by Salman against the five-year sentence awarded to him on May 6 by the sessions court in the 2002 hit-and-run case.
Salman Khan in the eye of the storm
- » Blackbuck case: He was accused of poaching two Blackbucks in 1998 near Jodhpur during the shooting of 'Hum Saath Saath Hain'. He was sentenced to one year prison.
- » Comments about 26/11 attacks: “It was the elite that was targeted this time. So they panicked. Then they got up and spoke about it. My question is why not before? Attacks have happened in trains and small towns too, but no one talked about it so much,” Salman said in 2010. He claimed that Pakistan cannot be held responsible. He later apologised.
- » Aishwarya Rai in the picture: After their presence in ‘Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam’, the couple’s relationship was in the eye of the storm. After they broke up in 2002, Aishwarya alleged that the actor harassed her, as he was unable to come to terms with the ending of their relationship. A case was also registered by Aishwarya’s parents.
- » Brawl with SRK: In 2008, the two actors allegedly got into a fistfight during a party. The relationship between the two stars has never been the same since then. However, the two actors got back together on a good foot in an Iftar party and SRK attended Salman’s sister’s wedding. SRK visited Salman hours before the verdict on hit-and-run case.
- » Vivek Oberoi’s allegations: The actor accused Salman of "threatening to kill him, abusing and indulging in character assassination." It was rumoured that Vivek Oberoi and Aishwarya Rai were in a relationship.
Justice D.W. Deshpande held the Bollywood actor guilty of all counts rejecting his claim that his driver Ashok Singh was at the wheel when the accident took place.
The Bombay High Court on May 8, 2015 stayed the conviction and gave bail to the actor upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 30,000.
From initial charges to the final verdict, here's a timeline of the case that spanned over a massive 13 years.