Bail or jail? The key legal issues that will likely determine the fate of Salman Khan

He may have got interim bail on Wednesday because he didn’t have the judgement copy in the 2002 hit-and-run case but Salman Khan won’t have that excuse when his lawyers plead for an extension of bail on Friday. Here are the factors that will determine the actor’s fate: Salman knew what he was doing, says the trial court judgement Judge DW Deshpande in his judgement relied heavily on the statement given by Khan’s former police bodyguard Ravindra Patil who said that the actor had consumed alcohol and was cautioned by him about speeding. The court upheld the section related to culpable homicide on the grounds that Khan was well aware of what he was doing. [caption id=“attachment_2234122” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  File image. PTI[/caption] “…every prudent man is having knowledge that he should not drive the vehicle under the influence of alcohol or without having licence. Every prudent man is having knowledge about the consequences of breach of the above duty,” the court noted. The court held the actor guilty under culpable homicide since it deemed Khan was well aware of the area in which he was driving, he knew that he shouldn’t be driving without a license and he shouldn’t be driving under the influence of alcohol. “The knowledge of such fact can neither be far away from the reality, in any case, would squarely fall within the term of “knowledge” appearing in section 304 (II) of IPC. Keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the present case the event resulting from such acts, omission and offences would be within the knowledge of the offender. I find that our case squarely fall within a term of “knowledge” appearing in section 304 (II) IPC,” the court noted in its judgement Salman’s conduct was unbecoming of a renowned film actor who was innocent The court also noted that Khan’s actions following the incident weren’t in keeping with someone who was innocent. “If really the accused Salman Khan committed no wrong, he could have visited the police immediately and lodged information about the incident. It is pertinent to note that the accused did not take any positive steps by visiting the hospital to see the injured and provide medical aid to them and to come to the spot again with the police,” the court noted. “The accused is a renowned Film Actor and he could do anything to provide help to the injured. If a ghastly accident takes place, wherein one person was crushed and four were injured and in spite of that, the person whose vehicle was involved in the accident hided himself till he is arrested, this itself shows the conduct of the accused,” the court noted Court says there was no doubt Salman was behind the wheel and not his driver The actor’s defence that it wasn’t him behind the wheel of the car and it was his driver Ashok Singh instead was rejected by the trial court on the grounds that Patil in his testimony hadn’t mentioned it. The court relied on the fact that Patil was an impartial witness and there was no evidence to suggest he was intentionally making a false deposition against Khan. The court also relied on various other witnesses statements that showed there were only three people in the car at the time of the incident and there was no fourth person as claimed by the defence. The court noted that the driver appeared to be a ‘got up’ witness who was produced after 13 years and rejected the defence’s argument. “Admittedly, it is nobody’s case that complainant Patil or Kamal Khan drove the vehicle on the day of incident. So only irresistible inference can be drawn that it is the accused (Khan) only who drove the vehicle at the time of the incident,” the court noted. Court says tyre burst didn’t cause accident, Salman Khan’s driving did The court said that the defence lawyer’s argument that a tyre burst resulted in the accident had also been proven false. It questioned how the accident and even a tyre burst could have taken place if the car was going at a slow speed, as the defence had claimed earlier. It also pointed out that the tyres of the car were tubeless so the chances of tyre bursting was unlikely. “The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving while not controlling the vehicle properly on the turning. If according to Mr. Shivade the tyre was burst and only wheel base remained, then in that circumstance, it will be impossible that car will climb 2 – 3 stairs,” the court noted. Despite the defence’s claim that the lone death in the case may have been due to a crane dropping Khan’s car on him, the court relied on multiple pieces of evidence to state that the death and injuries to others could have only taken place due to the actor’s car running over the victim. The Alistair Pereira and Sanjeev Nanda factor During the sentencing in the trial court, Salman Khan’s lawyers quoted the Alister Anthony Pareira case of 2006 in which seven people were killed after he lost control of his vehicle while driving under the influence of alcohol. Pareira was sentenced to three years in jail and Khan’s lawyers argued he should get the same sentence. However, the Supreme Court in its judgement had said that Pareira should have got a higher quantum of sentence and didn’t increase it only because of the fact that the prosecution had chosen not to appeal against what it deemed was a ‘meagre’ sentence. What his lawyers will be hoping for is that he gets the benefit of a long running trial like Sanjeev Nanda did in the case of his 1999 hit-and-run case in which six persons were killed. The Supreme Court in that case didn’t give Nanda an extended prison sentence, but instead told him to pay Rs 50 lakh as a fine and do community service for a year. So expect Khan’s lawyers to wax eloquent on the delay in the trial, the social work he’s done and the fact that the prime witness the court has relied on in its judgement had died before the re-trail was conducted in a sessions court. So what can happen today?  Khan’s lawyers are likely to seek an extension of bail while they appeal against the judgement on the grounds that he’s unlikely to flee the country and the social work he’s done. However, given the judgement conclusively states he was guilty, that becomes a little difficult for the actor. If he doesn’t get an extension of bail today he’s likely to seek more time to surrender and then appeal to the Supreme Court. In all likelihood, no matter which way the hearing goes today, it’s unlikely the actor will be going to jail today.