Thu. Apr 25th, 2019

[READ ORDER] Salman Khan granted interim bail by Bombay High Court in 2002 hit-and-run case.

Read the Bombay High Court order granting interim bail to Salman Khan in 2002 hit-and-run case.

Last Updated on

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

APPELLATE SIDE

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.592 OF 2015
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.572 OF 2015
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.572  OF  2015

Salman Salim Khan        …         Applicant

versus

State of Maharashtra …     Respondent

 Counsels:

  • Mr.Harish Salve Senior Advocate with Mr.Shrikant Shivade with Mr.Niranjan Mundargi with Mr.Anand Desai with Mr.Nirav Shah with Ms.Chandrima Mitra with Mr.Manhar S.Saini, Advocate for the Applicant.
  • Mr.S.S.Shinde, Public Prosecutor with Mr.Deepak Thakre,  APP  for the Respondent.

CORAM :

ABHAY M. THIPSAY J.

DATED  :                        6TH MAY 2015

ORDER

  1. This appeal, which has been filed  today, has  been placed on board on being mentioned for production on the ground of urgency. The appellant has  been  convicted  of  offences punishable under Sections 304 Part II of the Indian  Penal  Code (IPC), 338 of the IPC, 337 of the IPC and offences punishable under Motor Vehicles Act. He  has  been  sentenced  to  different terms of Imprisonment in respect of various offences of which he has been found guilty. The  most  severe  sentence  imposed  upon the applicant/appellant is in respect of the offence  punishable under Section 304 Part II of the IPC, which is of Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 5  (five)  years  and  fine  of Rs.25,000/­. The Judgment of the trial Court has been delivered today itself.
  2. The urgency in the matter is arising out of the fact that the appellant, who was throughout on bail, is likely to be taken in custody, on conviction. It is submitted that though the applicant/appellant has been convicted, copy of the impugned Judgment had not been delivered to him yet. That the copy is not so delivered, is not in dispute.
  3. Mr.S.K.Shinde, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that appeal is not competent, inasmuch as, it is not accompanied by a copy of the impugned Judgment. Though this appears to be correct, in view of the admitted position that the copy of the impugned judgment had not been delivered to the applicant/appellant at all, it would not be proper  to  deny  the urgent relief sought for by the appellant, which is in the nature of continuation of his bail for some  further  period.  This  is particularly so, because the Court time is getting over; and even otherwise, it would not be possible to hear elaborate arguments on the merits of the conviction, without knowing the contents of the Judgment delivered by the trial Court.
  4. Since the applicant/appellant was on bail  throughout the trial, and since a copy of the impugned judgment of conviction has not yet been furnished to him, it would be proper to protect the appellant for some time in the interest of justice.
  5. On hearing Mr.Harish Salve,  the  learned  counsel  for the applicant/appellant, it appears that there is a possibility of the appellant securing a copy of the judgment by 8th May 2015.
  6. In view of this, it is directed that the appeal be listed on board, for admission, on 8th May 2015.
  7. In the meantime, the applicant/ appellant shall be permitted to remain on the same bail  as  was  granted  to  him during the trial, but on executing a fresh bond before  the  trial Court.
  8. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this Order.
  9. Leave to amend the appeal memo by annexing a copy of the judgment as soon as it is made available and also by incorporating additional grounds, if so desired.

 

(ABHAY M. THIPSAY J.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *