Two days after his conviction, actor Salman Khan again walked out from the same sessions court premises in Fort, relief writ large on his face this time.

The Bombay High Court on Friday admitted his appeal against conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder for killing one person and injuring four in 2002 when his Land Cruiser crashed into a Bandra bakery, suspended his sentence of five years' rigorous imprisonment and released him on bail on a bond of Rs 30,000.

Observing that application of the charge of culpable homicide against Khan requires serious consideration, Justice Abhay Thipsay asked public prosecutor Sandeep Shinde: “Why will this case not be a case of only rash driving?“ The judge observed that “even on the basis that there is sufficient evidence to indicate that the applicant was driving the vehicle in question, at the material time, certainly, a number of arguable points have been raised, which need serious consideration.Among other things, whether the offence allegedly committed by the applicant would amount to an offence punishable under Section 304 II of the IPC and not merely an offence punishable under Section 304 A of the IPC, would also need examination. This would be of quite some importance as the offence punishable under Section 304 A of IPC is bailable, and invites a lesser punishment.“

Justice Thipsay admitted Khan's appeal soon after the matter got called. An appeal against a trial court verdict is usually admitted as a statutory right of a convict, and the public prosecutor did not oppose it. However, he opposed a plea by Salman's counsel Amit Desai to suspend his sentence and grant bail. Well before the judge could arrive, the ac courtroom was packed with media and lawyers, leaving no room for Salman's counsel Desai and advocate Shrikant Shivade or prosecutor Shinde to walk in. Lawyers, without matters of their own at the time, had perhaps come to see Desai tear at the trial court verdict.

Soon after the judge made it clear that the appeal was admitted, Desai launched into a blitzkrieg against blunders that the probe, prosecution and the judgment itself, he said, revealed. He began by disputing the conclusion that the car had only three occupants. “Ravindra Patil, the complainant, said there were three persons in the car, we said four. The fourth was the driver Ashok Singh. It was known to the prosecution from 2002 itself,“ Desai said, questioning the criticism over the “late introduction“ of the driver as witness in the case. “It is not as if Salman Khan took this as an afterthought,“ he said.

The other point Desai stressed on was the complete acceptance by sessions judge D W Deshpande of Patil's deposition as witness before the magistrate during the earlier trial for the lesser charge of rash driving. “Patil was a reluctant witness, because he was asked to say certain things. His deposition was so artificial. His statement about Salman being drunk or driving at a speed of 90-100 kmph was demolished, yet the judge accepted it.“ Desai said “the verdict is perverse... at many places, the judge merely says he finds no reason to disbelieve witnesses“.

Justice Thipsay asked if only Patil was examined as a witness and questioned why singer Kamaal Khan, the other occupant of the car, wasn't. While Desai said it was the prosecution's discretion, Shinde said he wasn't called since he was a British citizen who had returned to England and that “there was other evidence to prove the case“. Desai said the offence of culpable homicide was not made out. “The evidence produced during trial was not satisfactory,“ he pointed out.

The HC order noted, “It is also submitted there was some evidence to indicate the accident occurred due to bursting of a tyre... it is also submitted that evidence about the applicant being drunk was not satisfactory.“ Desai said though the prosecution's job is to prove beyond reasonable doubt its case, it failed badly.

Asked by the judge why Ashok Singh was not examined, Shinde said it was perhaps because Patil had said he was their day-time driver and at night, Salman drove himself. Shinde said the case against Khan was proved as he “knew the topography and knew people sleep on pavements, yet (he) drove drunk“. He called the fourth person theory “baseless“.

Throughout, Justice Thipsay posed questions to the defence and prosecution and observed, “Why should Salman's rights suffer just because his appeal is pending?“ He said, “We cannot pass an order against the accused just because it is asked for by the prosecution.“ When Shinde objected to the suspension of the sentence, the judge said, “Normally when sentence is less than seven years, the state does not oppose the suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal in case of an accused who is on bail during the trial.“

The judge said he thus directs that the appeal be heard expeditiously and posted it for hearing in July. He also said since Khan has been on bail throughout the trial, including the one for the graver charge of culpable homicide, it was unlikely he would abscond. “This is not a case where in spite of admission of appeal, the appellant should be kept in detention till the appeal is decided. It would be proper to suspend the sentence during the pendency of the appeal,“ he said in the order.

Directing Khan's release on bail, the judge said, “When an appeal is admitted... it would be rather unreasonable to suggest that even where arguable points needing consideration have been raised, appellant must be detained in custody.“

As directed by the HC, Khan then surrendered before sessions court. Close at hand were the two constant faces from his team, sister Alvira Khan Agnihotri and manager Reshma Shetty. His lawyer Shrikant Shivade furnished the fresh bail bond as the actor stood silently beside him. When judge Deshpande said Khan would need to comply and furnish surety within two weeks, he smiled and relaxed. At 5.48pm, as he exited the court premises, a beaming Alvira told TOI, “I am relieved that he is out.“

Law a passion for advocate Desai
For Amit Desai, a senior counsel who represented Salman Khan in the HC, practising criminal law is a passion that is evident to others when he appears in court often to demolish what a prosecution may claim is a water-tight case or to win brownie points, even a sympathetic ear from a strict judge, and a laughter-filled banter that his experience and legal might permits him to have with a judge while waiting for a hearing to begin in earnest. Desai has been appearing for many biggies, some of whom are now facing the 2G trials in Delhi. He appears for ex-CM Ashok Chavan in the Adarsh case where the current battle is now in the Supreme Court against a Bombay HC order not dropping his name. Some legal battles are tough and some are a breeze, some are long and unwieldy and some get him into knots over law points that need interpretation. He has appeared in all such cases, and in any courtroom he appears with a smile, behind which lies his knowledge of the law and quiet determination to beat the opponent in court.