10 Observations in Salman’s Bail Order – Legal Aspiration]. Have a look at it! http://www.lawkam.org/criminal/hc-grants-bail-to-salman/180/?utm_source=ReviveOldPost&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=ReviveOldPost
The Bombay High Court suspended the sentence imposed on Actor Salman Khan and granted him bail on Friday.
“He has been on bail for a long time and his liberty was not curtailed. Normally, in such cases, the appeal is admitted and an accused is granted bail,” Justice Abhay Thipsay said, while staying his conviction and granting him bail.
10 Important observations of the Appellate Court in the Bail Order
1. The applicant was on bail throughout the trial. Even after the addition of the charge of an offence punishable under section 304 II of the IPC, his liberty was not disturbed. The applicant is not likely to abscond, if released on bail during the pendency of the Appeal – and there is not even a suggestion to that effect.
2. 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.
3. This would be of quite some importance as the offence punishable under section 304 A of the IPC, is bailable, and invites a lesser punishment.
4. When a statutory right to Appeal is conferred upon a convict, and when an Appeal is admitted, indicating that the correctness, legality and propriety of the judgment of the trial court would be examined by the Appellate Court, it would be rather unreasonable to suggest that even where arguable points needing consideration have been raised, the appellant must be detained in custody in execution of the sentence till the Appeal is heard.
5. Normally, in such cases, 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. However, in view of the fact that in this case, some opposition has been offered, I have considered the possibility of directing the Appeal to be expeditiously heard. Neither the learned Public Prosecutor, nor the learned counsel for the appellant has any objection to stipulate that the Appeal shall be heard and decided expeditiously.
6. This is not a case where in spite of the admission of the 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.
7. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the Appeal, substantive sentences imposed upon the applicant/appellant shall stand suspended, and the applicant/appellant shall be released on bail in the sum of Rs.30,000/( Rupees Thirty thousand) with one surety in like amount.
8. The applicant shall forthwtih surrender himself before the trial court, and execute necessary bail bonds in accordance with this order.
9. The applicant may deposit cash of Rs.30,000/( Rupees Thirty thousand) in lieu of surety as a temporary measure. This facility shall be available to the applicant for a period of two weeks, within which time the applicant is expected to furnish a solvent surety in the bail amount.
10. The passport of the applicant is already with the Investigating Agency. The applicant has no objection to the retention of the passport by the Investigating Agency, during the pendency of the Appeal. At this stage, Mr.Desai submits that liberty be granted to the applicant to apply for a permission to travel abroad. It is needless to say that such liberty has not been taken away, and it would be open for him to make such an application to this Court, which, in the event of being made, shall be dealt with, on merits and in accordance with law.
Application is allowed by the Court in the aforesaid terms. Hearing of the Appeal is ordered to be expedited. It is decided by consent, that the Appeal shall be heard finally, as far as possible ,in the month of July 2015. The Appeal listed on board for directions on 15th June 2015.