BOMBAY TIMES (July 6, 2016)

Vinay Dalvi (MID-DAY; January 12, 2016)

Police top brass makes list of elementary errors the investigating officer made in the 2002 hit-and-run case against Salman Khan and circulates it to all police stations

The Mumbai police top brass has issued a circular to all police stations highlighting the lapses and discrepancies in the 2002 hit-and-run case in which the Bombay High Court recently acquitted actor Salman Khan.

The circular, issued by the additional commissioner of police (crime) KMM Prasanna, mentions 16 among the several procedural lapses of the police’s case the high court highlighted in its judgment.

The state had recently told the high court it would challenge the acquittal in the apex court. While the Bandra police are in the process of drafting the state’s appeal, Prasanna has asked all police officers to learn from investigating officer’s mistakes and ensure that such goof-ups do not occur again.

Officers from various police stations told mid-day that the unprecedented pointing out of lapses in a particular case has come as a surprise to many. Maharashtra has been plagued by one of the lowest conviction rates among all states in the country.

Sources said the goof-ups in the case were not isolated and that they were noticed in most hit-and-run cases. Taking Salman’s case as the benchmark for shoddy investigation, officers have been asked to ensure they present watertight argument when cases come up for trial.

“Whatever anomalies the court pointed out, we have just passed on to our staff,” said Prasanna. “That does not mean we accept them (points). We are only pointing it out to our men so that such things don’t happen in the future.”

The actor’s acquittal in the high court came after a lower court had sentenced him to five years. The police came under tremendous criticism for leaving several key discrepancies in the investigation, which went against the prosecution.

What the circular states

Following are the 16 points mentioned in the circular:

1. Bills were collected from Rain Bar in Santacruz, where the prosecution had alleged that Salman Khan drank liquor, without due certification under Section 65 (B) of the Evidence Act.

2. Bills of JW Marriott Hotel and parking tag were seized by the police but were not shown in the panchanama, creating doubts about the evidence regarding where the actor went after leaving Rain Bar.

3. There are handwritten endorsements on the computer extracts in the bills of Rain Bar, but no evidence was collected as to who took the said endorsements, and how.

4. The actor was available from the morning of September 28, 2002, for medical test at the Bandra police station, but he was only taken to JJ Hospital in the afternoon for blood sample collection.

5. While the blood sample of the deceased, Narula, was taken at Bhabha Hospital, why was the actor's blood sample collected at JJ Hospital? No explanation was given.

6. Though the blood samples had come on September 28, 2002, to the Bandra police station from JJ Hospital, they were sent to the Forensic Laboratory in Kalina only on September 30, 2002. Till then, they were kept in the police station where, the court had said, they might have been either tampered with or not stored properly.

7. A chain of custody of blood samples was not properly established and because of the missing link, biological evidence was not trustworthy.

8. Statement of the constable who brought blood samples of accused from hospital to police station was not recorded and he was not examined.

9. Important anomaly - 6 ml of blood extracted from actors body in two containers, but FDL received only 4 ml of blood.

10. Receiving clerk of FSL not examined.

11. The investigating officer did not verify the medical papers while collecting them. Blood collection reports shows many discrepancies and defects, which were admitted.

12. No charge under Section 66 (i) (b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act was framed.

13. In two places, the FIR was altered, but no explanation was given.

14. Under Section 161, statements were not recorded of witness. Nobody says Salman was driving the vehicle.

15. The defence had said that the tyre had burst, which was the reason of the crash but the tyre was not sent to the forensic laboratory to deny their claims.

16. Actor Kamal Khan was not summoned to the trial when his address was available with cops though he could have been a great witness for the police.

A relieved Salim Khan talks about son Salman's acquittal and the ordeal his family has been through over the years
Roshmila Bhattacharya (MUMBAI MIRROR; December 12, 2015)


Salim Khan is a relieved man today with the Bombay High Court on Thursday acquitting son Salman of all charges. The actor was accused of running over five people sleeping on the pavement in 2002, and killing one of them. The Sessions Court in May had pronounced him guilty and sentenced him to five years, the higher court upturned that verdict. "We've always believed in the judiciary, it's a good judgement and we are very happy, " says Salim.

The veteran scriptwriter is however peeved that on TV debates many are talking about "shoddy investigations". "It was the same allegation, the same papers were submitted in court again and the same charge-sheet was filed. No one called the investigations shoddy when the Session Court sentenced Salman to five years in jail?" he argues.

Salim wonders why questions like "Who killed the man then? Who was driving the car?" are cropping up now. He points out that the driver, Ashok Singh, had gone to the cops "but unhone usse bhaga diya because they wanted to pin the blame on Salman, saying he was behind the wheel and drunk".

Another allegation which has upset him is that his son "walked away scot free". He asserts though he's embarrassed to express his emotions publicly, for 13 years Salman and the family suffered pain and terror. "Salman went to jail for 18 days and my biggest fear was what if kal ko usse sazaa ho jaye? In the last years of my life I wouldn't want to see my son in prison. As a father I wouldn't be able to eat without wondering what he's getting. Yeh kya sazaa nahin thi? It was no picnic for us?" he grouses.

Salim admits that one of the reasons Salman did not get married and have children was because of the apprehension that one day he might be sentenced. "Jab bhi mauka aata tha, the thought of what would happen to his wife and children tormented him," he says. Now, will one of the country's most eligible bachelors finally tie the knot? "Shaadi vyah is written in your destiny. No one can make anyone commit to it. If it's in his destiny, it will happen," Salim shrugs.

And what plans to bring in Salman's 50th birthday? "No plans," he says shortly. "It'll be a normal birthday. Whoever drops by unhein hum khilayenge and wish for their blessings. I've seen Salman grow and become more mature over the years. I wish him good health, good movies and happiness. I want my son to be happy."

HC acquits Salman in the 2002 hit-and-run case in which one person had died and four were left injured
Sunil Baghel & Sharmeen Hakim Indorewala (MUMBAI MIRROR; December 11, 2015)

Thirteen years after he was accused of running over five people sleeping on a pavement and killing one in the process, the Bombay High Court upturned the trial court's guilty verdict and acquitted Salman Khan of all the charges. As Justice AR Joshi pronounced his verdict in a packed courtroom, Salman teared up, and then realizing that all eyes were on him, observing every fleeting emotion, turned his face to the wall while his bodyguard Shera discreetly moved to block him out of the media's line of vision giving the star time to compose himself.

Though the outcome was in his favour, the long-winded court battle clearly took its toll.

For, even as he left the courtroom to congratulatory cries from those present, Salman seemed overwhelmed, struggling with his emotions. The actor, who arrived in court room number 43 at 1.30 pm, wore a black-and-white checkered shirt, and jeans. Throughout the pronouncement he sat with his head lowered.

"It is the view if this court that appreciation of evidence by the trial court was not as per the principles laid down in criminal jurisprudence," observed Justice Joshi towards the end of his judgement, citing possible fabrication of the liquor bill produced by the police to show that Salman and his friends had consumed alcohol that night at JW Marriott Hotel, Juhu.

Salman tried his best to hold back the tears, but despite what his diehard fans think of him, he is only human. It had taken over 13 years for the court to pronounce him "not guilty" and he was going to savour every moment. After the court proceedings were over, he hummed a little. His sister, Alvira Khan, flashed a victory sign.

The court observed that the prosecution had failed to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that Salman was driving the Toyota Landcruiser that fateful night or that he was under the influence of alcohol at that time.

The verdict comes almost seven months after the Sessions Court handed over a conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and a sentence of 5 years' rigorous imprisonment. The HC, however, overturned the entire judgement except for one point - that the sole deceased, Nurulla Shaikh, died because of the accident and not at the time of rescue operations. This finding was based on the nature of injuries on Nurulla's body mentioned in the post-mortem report.

The court also observed that based on its analysis of entire evidence, there is a possibility of two hypotheses - that the investigation was conducted in a faulty manner with scant regards to the established procedure and, more particularly, the procedure required for connecting the chain of events when the case was based on biological evidence; and that the investigation was so conducted so as to keep some loose ends so that the benefit of doubt is given to the accused. "Existence of any of the above hypotheses is highly deplorable," the court observed.

Though it is not absolutely clear, but the court seems to have accepted the defence's submissions that the car had taken the Hill Road route and not the St. Andrews Road one. The court, on this point, observed that the prosecution had no explanation for change in route mentioned in the FIR from Hill Road to St. Andrews; and there was no proper cross-examination of Ashok Singh, Salman Khan's driver, on this very issue. Singh, in his deposition as defence witness in the trial court, had mentioned that while driving the car that night he had taken the Hill road route.

It was Salman's defence that the car's left front tyre burst near the junction of Hill Road and St. Andrews Road, causing the vehicle to spin out of control and hit the pavement. Whether the tyre burst or not is inconclusive in the HC judgement.

Apart from this, the main points on which the HC has differed from the Sessions Court are - that Salman consumed alcohol that night; that he was driving the vehicle; entire sequence connected to collection of blood samples from Salman and its report which showed double the legal limit of alcohol in blood; eyewitness accounts of injured persons; Salman's bodyguard late constable Ravindra Patil's testimony; non-examination of Kamaal Khan who was in the car when the incident happened; driver Ashok Singh's testimony and Salman's defence that it was Singh who was driving the vehicle.

He was acquitted from the charge of not helping the injured people get immediate medical attention as well as on the ground that the mob had become furious and was armed with rods etc, therefore he had to run away from the spot to escape mob fury.

The judgement also had a word of caution against media reports and public perception.

"While arriving at the above findings this court is not oblivious of the perception or the opinion of the members of the general public. However, it is a well-settled principle that the court must decide the case on material brought on record which can be accepted as evidence as per the procedure laid down by law. The court shall not get swayed by any popular belief that a particular person considering his profession or standing must have committed the offence or must be held guilty," Justice Joshi observed.

He went on to add, "The court is expected to be impervious to the pressure from public or from media. It is for good reason that the law of evidence has no place for the general public's opinion as a factor that should be weighed in a court while deciding the case... Any perception of truth by general public has to be proven before a court of law. Any strong suspicion cannot be considered as material which can be accepted to hold a person guilty of any offence."

The court then observed that given the quality of evidence, Salman can't be held guilty "even if the perception in the mind of the common man was different."


NGO WORKING FOR HOMELESS SAYS IT IS DISAPPOINTED

Homeless Collective, an NGO working for people forced to live on pavements, said it was "disturbingly ironic" that all charges against Salman were quashed on International Human Rights Day (December 10). "It should force us to rethink and reconsider our definitions of the 'Human' and 'Rights' with regard to the thousands of homeless in the city. We hope for change, we hope that the system and the society wake up to the rights of the homeless before we lose another Nurullah - the one who died on September 18, 2002," it said.

"What bothers us is the state's apathy towards the homeless, the system which refuses to acknowledge the perils of living on the street and shirking the responsibility of the death of many, many homeless citizens of this country, who have no option but to risk their lives every day as they sleep on footpaths and streets," it added.


THE 13-YR TRIAL

September 28, 2002
Salman Khan's white Toyota Land Cruiser crashes into the pavement near American Express Bakery on Hill Road in Bandra, killing one person and injuring four. The actor is arrested, released on bail, and booked under provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949.

October
The Mumbai Police invoke Section 302-II of the IPC, which is culpable homicide not amounting to murder, which carries a punishment of 10 years in jail.

October 7
Salman surrenders at Bandra Police Station.

October 21
The Mumbai Police file charge sheet, and Salman is granted bail three days later.

March 2003
Salman challenges application of 302-II in the sessions court, which is rejected.

June
The actor moves the Bombay High Court, which rules that Section 302-II is not application in the case.

October
The Maharashtra government challenges the Bombay HC order in the Supreme Court.

December
The SC rules that the magistrate court may decide whether 302-II could be applied.

October 2006
The magistrate court frames charges against Salman.

May 2007
A chemical analysis report suggests Salman was drunk at the time of the accident.

October 3
Salman's police bodyguard Ravindra Patil, who had filed the first FIR, dies of tuberculosis.

October 2011
Prosecution demands Salman must be tried under harsher sections.

December 23, 2013
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate VS Patil invokes the charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder on the actor, and refers the case to the sessions court, as the magistrate court does not have powers to try this offence.

November 24, 2014
Sessions court starts retrial of Salman.

March 28, 2015
Salman's family driver Ashok Singh owns up responsibility of the accident by giving testimony in trial court.

May 6
The sessions court sentences Salman to five years' rigorous imprisonment; the actor gets twoday interim bail by the Bombay High Court.

May 8
The Bombay High Court admits plea against conviction, posts hearing on June 15.

November 30
The court rejects defence plea to examine singer Kamaal Khan as court witness.

December 10
Salman acquitted of all charges.

Subhash K Jha (DNA; December 11, 2015)

On Thursday afternoon, Salman Khan was acquitted of all charges in the hit-and-run case. The court’s verdict will have far-reaching consequences in the superstar’s life. The most crucial decision pending due to the legal uncertainties, that Salman will now take, is regarding his marriage.

According to sources close to Salman, he might agree to get married now. “Every time his parents raised the question of his marriage, Salman would turn around to say, ‘What would I tell my wife if the court cases go against me? What would she tell our child? That the father is in jail?’ Salman wanted to be out of the legal tangles before marrying. Now that the verdict is out in his favour, the coast is clear for his marriage.”

Friends say it is only a matter of time before Salman takes the plunge. “It could be as soon as early 2016,” says the buddy.

Shaheen Parkar (MID-DAY; December 10, 2015)

Salman Khan’s special friend Iulia Vantur seems to have flown in from Romania to be by the star’s side during his hour of crisis. Today, the Bombay High Court will pronounce its verdict in the 2002 hit-and-run case in which Salman is accused of driving over pavement dwellers in a drunken state, killing one.

Last afternoon, the actress-anchor was spotted at the star’s Bandra residence, Galaxy Apartments; she did not evade shutterbugs when she stepped onto the balcony. As reported in hitlist yesterday, ‘Iulia is back’, she had accompanied Salman to David Dhawan’s house late on Monday night after he wrapped up the day's shoot for his next film, Sultan at a hotel in Juhu.

For the past two years, there has been a great deal of speculation about the Romanian actress and Sallu. Recently, there was buzz that they had secretly got engaged and were to exchange wedding vows early next year. Salman’s sister Arpita had then taken to Twitter to deny the news.

Iulia has been spotted with Salman at family dinners and even at shoot locations. She was also present during Arpita’s wedding celebrations in November 2014.

A source close to the actor says, “Iulia is close to the Khandaan and frequently visits Galaxy Apartments. Salman seems to be fond of her.” The star, on his part, has chosen to be mum about his friendship with Iulia, who did an item number in his brother-in-law Atul Agnihotri’s production, O Teri (2014).

Salman Khan recalls how he struggled to focus on work with conviction in the 2002 hit-and-run case staring him in the face; talks about further collaborations with Sooraj Barjatya and plans for his 50th birthday
Gaurav Dubey (MID-DAY; October 30, 2015)

Khan lets out a big cry as he takes his seat next to me. He winces as he flexes those bulgy biceps and turns his head from side to side. Hectic promotions are on for his Diwali release, Prem Ratan Dhan Payo (PRDP), but I am told the exhaustion has nothing to do with it; the star has been undergoing intense training for his 2016 film, Sultan, in which he plays a wrestler. I ask if he’s ready for the interview and his manager cuts in, “Give him two minutes, please”. Salman smiles and quips, “You think I will feel okay in two minutes? Come on, let’s do this.” Munching on protein cookies and fruits on the side (and repeatedly insisting that I have some of it), he gets talking about movies, controversies, stress and plans for his 50th birthday this December. Excerpts from the interview:

How’s your health?
Good, but since I am training for Sultan, it’s getting a bit painful. The prep-up involves a lot of physical exertion, so something or the other keeps hurting everyday. But I am enjoying it all. Don’t worry, I won’t let my fans down.

You have teamed up with Sooraj Barjatya after a decade and half for PRDP. What can the audience expect from this collaboration?
I value my association with Sooraj; the kind of films we have done has earned us a lot of respect. Yes, we hadn’t worked for a long time and now we doing a film, which in my eyes and mind, is better than the three movies we did earlier — Maine Pyar Kiya (1989), Hum Aapke Hain Koun..! (1994) and Hum Saath-Saath Hain (1999). Sooraj’s movies are not preachy; there is a nice feeling to them. When you come out of the theatre, you will be glowing because you imbibe all the niceness. It’s also one of the biggest budget films that I have done so far.

To what extent are you involved in the marketing process? Why did you choose Diwali for the release?
Sooraj wanted a Diwali release. He planned this film three years ago, but then I got busy with other projects.

Did you also take time to agree to do the film?
I knew he was writing the script. When he was done with it, we sat down for a narration. There was no way that I could say no to him.

Will you collaborate with him again in the near future?
Of course, there will be more collaborations.

You were juggling the shoot of PRDP and your last outing, Bajrangi Bhaijaan earlier this year. Court hearings related to your 2002 hit-and-run case were also going on at the same time. What was your frame of mind? How tough was it concentrate on work?
It was very difficult. I had to block everything out and give my 100 per cent to my work. When a fan pays to watch my film, I have to ensure that he/she enjoys it. I can’t do a half-hearted job and say that ‘guys, I was going through sh* t’; they won’t care. I mean, they do care, but when they go to see a film, they want to enjoy. Concentrating on work when all those things were happening around was really difficult.

What sort of role do you personally prefer playing on screen: family guy Prem or Dabangg style action hero?
Depends on the script. Like in Bajrangi Bhaijaan, my character could have easily beaten up people and done a lot of stunts, but given the story, he was the one who had to get bashed and bruised to help Munni reach home safely. You have to forget about your image if you want to do an honest job.

The Bajrangi Bhaijaan story turned real with a Pakistani activist helping Indian girl Geeta return home 15 years after she strayed across the border. Do you plan to meet her?
I don’t think so. I work closely with an NGO which tracks missing children or those in remand homes in India and helps them reunite with their families. We recently sent 30 kids back home. When the first lot was being sent, I went to meet them. So, every time the kids were going home, they expected me to see them off. Besides, two or three of them ran away from home to meet me in Mumbai, so I had to stop going to them. As far as Geeta is concerned, she wanted to meet her biological parents and I am happy at their reunion. The family that she was staying with in Pakistan took great care of her. I hope her real parents take as much care of her. Lot of Indian kids have disappeared and people have exploited them, trafficked them and did what not! Geeta was fortunate to have not gone through any of that.

You will turn 50 on December 27. How do you plan to bring in your big day?
I don’t think turning 50 is a big deal and so, I have no plans for any celebrations. In fact, we have to work harder for our fans to have a memorable time at the movies. The pain this side is directly proportional to the enjoyment on the other side. And if you endure the pain on the sets, your fans will strive to take their lives a notch higher and be better human beings.

Shaheen Parkar (MID-DAY; June 4, 2015)

Rumour mills are abuzz with stories about growing distance  between Salman Khan and his Kick (2014) heroine Jacqueline Fernandez, who had apparently become more-than-friends during the film’s making. But if recent events are any indication, Jacqueline seems to be no longer on Salman’s radar.

A clear hint in this direction came from Salman himself. During a Bollywood awards ceremony in Dubai recently, Salman was talking about his buddy filmmaker Sajid Nadiadwala and his plans to direct him again in Kick 2. “Sajid and I will work together then… whenever it happens. However, there will be no Jacqueline. She has been ‘Kick’ed out. Now we will find someone else,” the star reportedly said.

Says a source, “Salman may have made this statement in his inimitable humorous style, but it is a telltale sign of things not being well between him and Jacky. Salman is known to reveal what is on his mind through his trademark wisecracks.”

There were other signs of their growing distance too. Jacqueline was conspicuous by her absence when the entire industry turned up at Salman’s house to extend moral support post his hit-and-run court verdict. Though it was claimed that she was travelling then, she didn’t talk about him on social media either.

Earlier, Jacky had been roped in to do an item number in Salman’s upcoming production Hero — the launchpad for star kids Sooraj Pancholi and Athiya Shetty. However, the makers decided to drop the song though the actress had already started rehearsing for it. The reason strangely was that the film would become too long if the item number was incorporated.

Last December, Salman had visited Sri Lanka at Jacqueline’s behest to visit her restaurant there besides conducting eye camps as part of his charitable foundation and cavass for former Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapakasa. In January, she had been part of Sallu’s show Bigg Boss to promote her film Roy. But things seem to have change since then.

The actress was unavailable for comment.

Shilpi Sharma, once the live-in partner of singer-actor Kamaal Khan, opens up about how the prime witness in the Salman Khan hit-and-run case vanished overnight, selling off the flat they shared and leaving her shattered 
Ankur Pathak (MUMBAI MIRROR; May 11, 2015)

Gaurav Dubey (MID-DAY; May 9, 2015)

Post his ‘guilty’ verdict in the 2002 hit and run case, the suspense and anxiety enveloping Salman Khan and his family had poured onto the street outside his Bandra house. Hundreds of fans from different parts of the country had been assembling outside Galaxy Apartments to express their solidarity with the star, who was out on a two-day interim bail and staring at uncertainty.

But, on Friday afternoon, as news broke out about the Bombay High Court suspending Salman’s five-year jail term, the crowd shrieked in celebration. Then many turned emotional while some folded their hands in prayer and others continued to pump their fists in the air.



A 20-something fan Nakul, who had almost been camping outside the actor’s residence for the past three days, looked skywards muttering something incoherently. He said, “Salman bhai is always known for creating records on Fridays when his films release and today is no different. We all are happy that our bhaijaan is back home. We had been praying for him since the court’s judgment came in and it seems our prayers have been answered.”

As the news started sinking in, Salman’s diehard fans began bursting crackers while singing and dancing to his hit tracks, the favourite being Jumme Ki Raat from Kick (2014). As the crowd started to swell, the cops stationed outside the star’s house had to use force to disperse the crowd. Yet, the fans, who had been braving the oppressive heat and hoping for a reprieve for Salman since Wednesday, remained undeterred.



Amidst all the fan frenzy and hullabaloo, the Salman case was an easy way for some to make hay while the sun shone. Bottled water, soft drinks and other fast food was being sold at double the rates. A few food stalls that had been set up in the vicinity also charged twice the usual amount.

At around 1.45pm, as Salman started from his house to his lawyer’s office enroute to the sessions court to surrender as per the High Court’s order, the fans turned hysteric at his sight. They jostled each other as well as mediapersons to catch a glimpse of their idol, who seemed relieved and relaxed yesterday with a soft smile playing on his lips.



Some of them flanked his car and went click-click-click. Manoeuvring through the sea of humanity, his luxury vehicle made its way out and when he returned, he got an overenthusiastic reception from his fans. In a few minutes, Salman went up to his balcony and waved at his fans, his expressions screaming gratitude.

“This has finally ended like a Salman Khan movie as all his fans are as happy as can be,” quipped Sahil, a college student, showing a photo of the star that he had just clicked on his phone.

HC Asks Why Kamaal Khan Wasn't Examined As Witness
Swati Deshpande & Rebecca Samervel (THE TIMES OF INDIA; May 9, 2015)

No Reason For Witnesses To Lie: Judge
Swati Deshpande & Rebecca Samervel (THE TIMES OF INDIA; May 8, 2015)

Sonup Sahadevan (MID-DAY; May 7, 2015)

While Harish Salve, one of the country’s top legal eagles, may have secured interim relief for Salman Khan, the Damocles’ sword continues to hang over his head. hitlist takes a look at what all is at stake if the actor ends up in prison…

Brand value 
Salman is among the highest paid celebrities in India when it comes to endorsing brands. From soft drinks to vests, the actor reportedly endorses more than 10 different products. Experts, however, feel that the court judgment will have no adverse impact on his endorsement or brand value. Explains adman Bharat Dabholkar, “Advertising and endorsement deals are signed for a year or two. If the performance of the stars dips, you won’t be able to cancel it immediately because you have already paid them the entire amount. Also, with Salman, there is no great negative publicity like in Sanjay Dutt’s case where there was an anti-national wave. So sponsors and advertisers will not be jittery because he is not in news with the public opinion against him.”

Films on floor
Salman’s immediate worry would be to complete the films that are currently being shot — Prem Ratan Dhan Payo and Bajrangi Bhaijaan. An official of Rajshri Productions, which is producing the former, says, “We were expecting a lesser sentence for him. Our film as well as his other projects are yet to be completed. Nearly 75 per cent has been shot so far, but the major portions with Salman are pending. We hope that the higher court gives a favourable judgment.”

Now with his lawyers aiming to secure bail for him, Salman looks well on course to complete his pending assignments.

Says Amod Mehra, “Salman must have finished shooting a great deal for both these movies. Besides, courts do allow actors to complete their pending assignments so that their prolonged absence does not cause irreversible loss to the producers and crew.”

Future films
Salman has three mega projects in his kitty that are yet to go on floors, which includes Karan Johar’s Shuddhi, YRF’s Sultan and Boney Kapoor’s No Entry sequel. While Salman’s possible imprisonment would mean personal loss for him as he wouldn’t be able to star in any of these projects, there is no real loss on paper for the producers concerned as none of the films has gone on floors yet. However, filmmakers at this juncture are more concerned about Salman and his well- being. Says Boney Kapoor, “Our prayers are with him and I hope he finds all the strength to come out of this. Whether our film will happen or not is not something we are thinking about right now.”

Trade pundits, however, are adopting a wait-and-watch policy at the moment. Trade expert Komal Nahta states, “I don’t think anything would be affected if he gets bail. So he will be free to work and I believe the court will not put any restrictions on the same. It all depends on what the appellate court orders and how long the bail term would last.”

Mehra, too, believes that filmmakers would not be adventurous in signing Salman and prefer to act post High Court’s detailed judgment.

Ankur Pathak (MUMBAI MIRROR; May 6, 2015)

Early on Tuesday evening, Salman Khan arrived in Mumbai from Kashmir - where he was shooting for Kabir Khan's Bajrangi Bhaijaan - to appear for the court verdict today in the 2002 hit-and-run case. If found guilty of the most grievous charges against him, the actor could get up to 10 years in jail.

At the Khan residence in Bandra Bandstand, the entire family, including brothers Sohail and Arbaaz, sister Arpita and Alvira and their families, and mother Salma, gathered at the dinner table. The mood was sombre.

"I'd be lying if I said I'm not anxious," Salman's father, Salim Khan, told Mirror. "But I need to maintain a brave front. If I lose it, the whole family will..."

Asked if they're prepared for the verdict going against Salman, the veteran scriptwriter said: "We're ready to fight it out. We'll face it, like we've in the past."

"We aren't going to run away or abscond, right," the father quipped, his laughter betraying a hint of nervousness.

Salman spent most of the evening in his house, and the family ensured that things were as "normal as possible." The actor responded to messages from friends, and didn't have any plans of venturing out in the evening.

"The fear of danger is worse than the danger itself," Salim Khan said. "His mother, Salma, has been visiting all sorts of temples across the city. She is the most worried. But I'm hopeful that it will go well, when something like this happens with your children, it's the parents who suffer... Sadly, we can only pray that it ends well for all of us."

Actor Faces 10 Yrs Jail If Convicted In Bandra Mishap 2002 Case
THE TIMES OF INDIA (May 6, 2015)

Salman Khan, who is shooting Bajrangi Bhaijaan in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir had some special visitors on Thursday.

A delegation of leaders of the reigning People's Democratic Party (PDP), met Salman with the request to promote Jammu and Kashmir tourism, which has been suffering from dwindling numbers after the recent floods.

The actor spent an hour with the group but there was no happy ending as Salman told them that he has decided not to make any commitments before the verdict in the hit and run case arrives on May 6.

A source close to the development told Mirror that Sallu has promised to consider the offer, if he gets an all-clear from the court.

"The leader requested Salman to spread the word that everything is fine in Jammu and Kashmir as tourists' footfall has hit an all-time low. Salman turned it down saying that he will give it a thought later, only after the verdict in his on-going trial is delivered in the first week of May," said the source.

Salman, who is also suffering from an ear-infection, has decided to keep a low profile till the court's decision.

"He will not sign any endorsements or be seen promoting any brand and this is a decision he's taken after many discussions with his team," said the source.

When contacted, the actor's spokesperson confirmed that a request to promote J&K tourism was indeed made to Salman by the PDP, but the superstar insisted that now was not the right time.

The Dabangg actor will be in the Valley for one and a half months for the Bajrangi Bhaijaan schedule and he has been joined by his brother-in-law, Arpita Khan's husband Aayush Sharma. The Kabir Khan-directorial which also features Kareena Kapoor is gearing up for an Eid release.

Salman's co-star Kareena Kapoor Khan is expected to arrive in the first week of May and the two will continue shooting in Pahalgam before heading to Gulmarg and Sonamarg.

DNA (April 16, 2015)


l The two articles written about Salman dated June 26 and June 27 2013, titled ‘The wretched witness’ and ‘Ravindra Patil — the death of a messenger’, have Salman’s picture and make uncremonious, biased, false and reckless accusation. “Everybody knows that one person was killed and four others were killed when an inebriated Salman Khan rammed his Landcruiser onto the steps of A1 Bakery at the turning near Mehboob Studio in the wee hours of September 28, 2002,” — the first article states.

l The second article states, “It was unclear who was putting pressure on Patil — some say they were all well-wishers of Salman Khan from the police force while others say those talking to Patil were Salman’s common friends from the film industry. Whoever, they were, the pressure tactic seemed to be working as Patil was showing signs of a nervous breakdown.

l It further reads, “By stating that our client has killed a person and injured pavement dwellers and by using words ‘one person was killed’, ‘rammed his landcruiser’, ‘Inebriated Salman Khan’, you have wilfully stated as facts which are at the highest mere allegations. The charges may involve culpable homicide not amounting to murder.”

l Says that these reckless, irresponsible and defamatory allegations have defamed Salman and lowered his reputation in the eyes of the public. Also it seems like the story is instigating the public to believe that Salman was responsible for the death of Ravindra Patil.

l The defemation suit has asked for the articles to be withdrawn with immediate effect, tender a public apology on the website within two days of the suit being sent and damages of One Hundred Crore rupees to be paid within one week for the notice being received.

Other defamation suits in the west
In 2005, Cameron Diaz won her libel lawsuit against British newspaper The Sun today, over the publication’s claim she had an affair with a married man.

In 2013, Tom Cruise won $50 million lawsuit against Bauer Publishing for publishing a article saying he was a bad father. And had abandoned his daughter Suri.

In 2014, Scarlett Johanssan won a defamation case against a French author.She sued Delacourt for making false claims about her private life in his novel where the fictional character who was not really Johansson had two affairs that the real Johansson never had. It was, she said, defamatory — and a French judge agreed. The court awarded her just €2,500, plus €2,500 in legal costs.

Sharon Stone sued plastic surgeon Renato Calabria for allegedly telling both U.S. Weekly and Touch Magazine that she had undergone a facelift. Stone claimed that these statements defamed her and made it difficult for her to find work.

Jessica Biel and Justin Timberlake settled their defamation case against celebrity magazine Heat at the High Court in Dublin. After the magazine apologised to the couple over an article published in September’s edition under the headline. “Justin Timberlake gets flirty with another woman, it’s not his wife!”

Anita Singh says her husband never discusses his work at home, and she is proud that he did not let his master of 25 years down
Nazia Sayed (MUMBAI MIRROR; April 4, 2015)

While as per civil medical code the test sample has to have at least 5 ml blood, the doctor told the sessions court he put only 3 ml in the vial
Lata Mishra & Sharmeen Hakim Indorewala (MUMBAI MIRROR; January 31, 2015)

With the doctor who tested Salman Khan's blood for alcohol admitting he was relying on common practices, and did not even know about the existence of two medico-legal handbooks, an RTI query filed last year by another doctor from St George's Hospital found that the two handbooks have, in fact, been out of print for 20 years.

Hospitals too have said they do not have a copy of the books, and that doctors rely on "guidance from seniors". What's more, the government has admitted it has not printed the book in the last two decades, and neither have the books been revised or updated for 40 years.

The 'Civil Medical Code' and 'Hospital Administration', the two guide books published by the Maharashtra Government, have many important rules and regulations, besides specifying laws pertaining to the medical field, and particularly procedures to be followed in medico-legal cases. Every government and private doctor is expected to have knowledge of the handbooks.

"After the Salman Khan case threw up the fact of procedures not being followed, I went to the printing press of the Maharashtra Government at Charni Road to purchase the books, but was told that they have been out of stock for the last 20 years," said a medical officer from JJ Hospital who did not wish to be named. "I was also told that no editions of the books have been printed since then. Strangely, I found that no copies were available anywhere," he said.

"However, I did not give up but checked with other medical officers from civic as well as state-run hospitals," the JJ medical officer continued. "But forget about having copies, none of them were even aware of these two important books."

"It is the responsibility of the state's Directorate of Health Services (DHS) to make sure that the two books are available," said another JJ doctor. "As per DHS guidelines, it is mandatory to follow the Civil Medical Code as well as Hospital Administration guideline, which details the protocol to be followed. But if these two important books are not available, how can we be expected to handle medico-legal cases," he added.

As for the St George's doctor who filed the RTI (Mirror has a copy), and who has requested anonymity, he had heard of the books and was keen to follow them, but could not lay his hands on copies despite going out of his way to find them.

"In frustration, I filed an RTI application last year and asked the health department to have the books publish again. But till date the health department has ignored my request. I then took up the matter with the Information Commission, who considered it of public importance and asked the health department to put up the books on their website. However, over a year has passed but it has not been done. I have reminded them several times, but to no avail," the doctor said.

A senior doctor from JJ Hospital added: "Nobody bothers to check why the books are not available. Whenever we are asked by doctors for copies, we give them xerox copies of the books and ask them to make their own copies. What we have too is not updated, but this has been going on for years.. Despite JJ being a major institute this is the way we somehow manage, but other smaller hospital across the state do not even have that, and some are not even aware of the books."

When Mirror contacted DHS Director Dr Satish Pawar, he said, "Yes I agree that the Civil Medical Code and Hospital Administration books are not available with several hospitals. The books have also not been revised for the last 40 years though the state health department has issued several fresh guidelines since then."

Dr Pawar added: "Ideally, the books should have been revised every five years, taking into consideration the developments in the field. It's an important issue, that's why we have now formed a committee to update the books and make them easily available to everyone."

What happened in Salman's case

Dr Suhas Pawar, former medical officer of JJ, who extracted blood from actor Salman Khan and handed over two samples for chemical analysis to the cops, is being examined by the defence lawyers in the actor's hit-and-run case.

During his testimony, it was found that there were glaring discrepancies in the manner in which procedures were carried out in government-run hospitals. Dr Pawar testified in court that two vials were kept to store Salman's blood. While one vial had been kept empty, the other was kept ready with preservatives. He said he extracted around 6ml of blood from Salman and put it in the two vials. Both were then sealed and given for analysis.

The defence, however, asked him why was 6ml of blood extracted in total, when according to the Civil Medical Code 5ml was required to be put in the vial with preservatives for accurate results.

The doctor said that it was a common practice, to which the defence lawyer, Shrikant Shivde, asked, "Does your common practice have precedence over the Civil Medical Code?"

It was further revealed that the preservative (sodium floride) necessary to avoid fermentation of blood was not used. Moreover, when asked about the Civil Medical Code, the doctor said it was not part of his MBBS course, and might have been published later. This left everyone present in court aghast as Shivde pointed out: "The Civil Medical Code had been in publication since 1976."