John Abraham gets bail on surety of Rs 20,000

Mumbai: Bombay High Court has granted bail to Bollywood actor John Abraham in the 2006 rash driving case on a surety of Rs 20,000. Earlier, the sessions court had dismissed the plea from John Abraham, seeking time to surrender in relation to a case of rash driving. The incident in question occurred in 2006, when Abraham who was on a motorcycle, skidded and injured two pedestrians. Abraham had taken the two youngsters to hospital immediately after. [caption id=“attachment_239080” align=“alignleft” width=“380” caption=“Abraham was sentenced to 15 days jail for a rash driving case: Reuters”]  [/caption] Upholding John’s conviction, Sessions Judge NV Navkhar ordered his detention following which he was taken into police custody. The 39-year-old actor had reached the court around 11 am for the hearing on his plea. After the judge rejected John’s plea seeking time to surrender before the trial court, the actor moved the Bombay High Court against the sessions court order and sought bail. On 14 October, 2010, the Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Bandra convicted John for the rash driving incident in which two persons were injured, and sentenced him to a 15-day jail term. He was granted bail the same day. A fortnight later, the model-actor filed an appeal in the Sessions Court against the conviction. His appeal stated that “judge has misconstrued and has, without applying the principles relating to the acts of rashness and criminal negligence, convicted the applicant (John)”. The incident dates back to 8 April, 2006, when Abraham allegedly rammed his Yamaha Hayabusa bike into a bicycle, injuring two youngsters - Shyam Kasbe (22) and Tanmay Majhi (19) - on Carter Road in suburban Bandra. According to police, the actor was returning from Maureen Wadia’s Gladrags show while both the youngsters were returning after closing their shop. The police later booked him under IPC Sections 279 (rash driving or riding on a public way) and 337 (causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others). According to John’s application, even the victims “had not made out a case of either criminal negligence or rashness” against him. “The lower court has relied upon hearsay evidence in convicting the appellant (John),” the appeal had said. With inputs from PTI