Salman Khan's bail hearing in blackbuck poaching case reserved for Saturday: Actor to stay in Jodhpur jail; highlights

The Jodhpur Sessions Court on Friday decided to defer proceedings in Bollywood actor Salman Khan’s bail plea hearing to Saturday. The actor, who was convicted by the trial court on Thursday and sentenced to five years in prison in a 1998 blackbuck poaching case, will be spending second night in the Jodhpur Central Jail. The district and sessions court in Jodhpur heard arguments on the suspension of sentence and bail application before deferring the matter till Saturday.

The actor reportedly shot and killed two blackbucks in Kankani village near Jodhpur on the night of 1-2 October, 1998 during the shooting of the film Hum Saath Saath Hain. While convicting Salman, the trial court acquitted his Bollywood colleagues Saif Ali Khan, Tabu, Neelam and Sonali Bendre and a local, Dushyant Singh, giving them the “benefit of doubt” for the incident.

Judge asks Salman’s lawyers to produce previous case records

In his arguments during the bail plea hearing on Friday, defense counsel Mahesh Bora said there were various loopholes in the investigation. He argued that no investigation in any of the cases of poaching proved that Salman used firearms. “We have argued that the eyewitness in the case was not reliable,” Bora told reporters outside the courthouse.

The public prosecutor reportedly argued that the defense must bring forth documents proving the same. As a result, the magistrate Ravindra Kumar Joshi sought previous records of the case from the rural court and Rajasthan High Court. The arguments will continue in court on Saturday. However, it is uncertain till what time they will extend.

‘Received death threats,’ says Salman’s lawyer

Speaking to reporters ahead of the bail plea hearing on Friday, which began at 10.30 am, Bora claimed he received death threats on his phone. “I am getting death threats. The message said ‘Salman Khan ka case ko chodh dijiye, warna goli maarenge’ (Drop Salman’s case or you will be shot),” he said.

Bora’s comments come a day after Salman reportedly received death threats from Punjab-based gangster Lawrence Bishnoi on Thursday.

Ahead of the bail plea hearing, Salman’s sisters, Arpita and Alvira, reached the Jodhpur court along with the actor’s bodyguard Shera. CNN-News18 also reported that brothers Sohail and Arbaaz Khan, as well as director Sajid Nadiawala, left for Jodhpur at 11.45 am from Mumbai.

Soon after his conviction on Thursday, Salman’s lawyers were ready with the 51-page bail application where 54 grounds were been raised for the judge to consider and grant him bail. Speaking to News18 , lawyer Hastimal Saraswat said there are problems with Thursday’s verdict which needs reconsideration. “If it was not Salman Khan, bail would have been granted the next day,” said Saraswat, adding that the star was paying a price for his celebrity status.

Salman Khan spends night next to Asaram Bapu’s cell in Jodhpur Central Jail

Salman may be a heartthrob of millions, but at the Jodhpur Central Jail he is just Qaidi No. 106 who was served simple dal-roti which he did not eat on Thursday. Salman is lodged in ward no. 2 , adjacent to the cell of self-styled godman Asaram Bapu, who has been accused of rape.

The actor had previously spent a total of 18 days in the jail in 1998, 2006 and 2007, all for cases of poaching.

Jail superintendent Vikram Singh, while briefing the media on the celebrity inmate on Thursday, said Salman would be treated as a normal prisoner and no special treatment would be given to him. He will have a simple wooden bed, a rug and a cooler in his cell, Singh said. “He (Salman) was given normal jail diet like dal chapatti and the morning meal will include simple khichdi,” he said.

A curtain separated Salman and Asaram’s cell. Salman slept on a rug on the floor even after Asaram reportedly offered him his mattress which the actor refused.

Sources, however, said the Bollywood icon did not eat the jail food or drink tea. The actor’s blood pressure also shot up thrice during the night. Doctors constantly monitored the actor’s health and gave him a tablet to normalise his blood pressure level.

Crucial witness failed to identify Tabu, Sonali Bendre in court

It was during a cross examination in the blackbuck poaching case trial that a crucial witness and complainant Poonamchand Bishnoi failed to identify Tabu and Sonali Bendre in court, which helped in the actors’ acquittal on Thursday, reported The Times of India .

According to the report, defense counsel Shrikant Shivade produced Tabu and Sonali in court one day and asked Bishnoi to identify the two women. He couldn’t do so. When the court asked Bishnoi why he couldn’t identify them even though he named them in his complaint, he replied that their unassuming attire of white salwar-kameez confused him. This helped boost Shivade’s case that Bishnoi was not at the site of the killing but 150 metres away from it. The defense also added it would have been impossible to recognise people in the vehicle’s glare at night.

Judge says jail term is fair, given actor’s clout and gravity of offence

In his  201-page verdict , Chief Judicial Magistrate Dev Kumar Khatri said that since the culprit is an actor and has a substantial following, thus his actions are observed and followed by the masses.

“The accused is a popular actor whose deeds are followed by people. Despite this, the accused hunted two black bucks. It is not justified to give Salman Khan the benefit of probation in view of the manner in which he hunted by shooting two innocent, moot black bucks that come under the purview of the Wildlife Conservation Act,” the verdict had said.

Khatri said that,"… considering the rising number of cases of illegal hunting of wildlife animals, looking at the circumstances of the case and gravity of the offence, giving the benefit of Probation of Offender Act does not appear justified."

He said that the court had reached its decision after careful examination of the examples and evidence presented by the accused’s lawyer, but added that “in my opinion, the facts and circumstances presented by them are different from the facts and circumstances of this case. Thus, it is fair to be punished with imprisonment and penalty in accordance with the 9/11 Wildlife Protection Act under the convicted crime. "

With inputs from agencies