Mother of Lt. Ravindra Patil fighting battle alone against Salman Khan

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday dismissed two applications seeking cancellation of Bollywood actor Salman Khan's bail and enhancement of five-year jail term awarded to him in the 2002 hit-and-run case.

The applications were filed by Sushilabai Patil, mother of late Ravindra Patil, the complainant in the case and Salman's ex-police bodyguard who passed away during the trial.

In another development, the Court today fixed the hearing of Salman's appeal against conviction on a daily basis from September 21.

Justice A R Joshi rejected Patil's application seeking cancellation of Salman's bail and enhancement of punishment awarded to him on the ground that the applicant had earlier also made a similar plea and the HC had rejected it on the ground that she had no locus standi.

The applicant urged that Salman was convicted earlier by a Rajasthan court in black buck killing case and this was not communicated to the Mumbai Magistrate who granted him bail in the 2002 hit-and-run case after adding the charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under IPC.

Hence, his bail should be cancelled because a convict cannot get liberty in any other case, Patil's lawyer Manohar Sharma argued.

It was on the basis of Ravindra Patil's complaint that Salman was booked in the case. Patil had told police that the actor was driving the car on September 28, 2002, when it rammed into a shop in suburban Bandra killing one person and injuring four others who were sleeping outside.

He had also alleged that Salman was under the influence of liquor.

Salman's lawyer, Amit Desai, once again, objected today to the paper-book saying that some documents were still missing, following which the court allowed the defence team and prosecution to sit together and inspect the records and proceedings of the case.

The court also asked the defence and the prosecution to place the missing' documents before it on the next occasion so that it could consider adding them in the paper-book.

Paper-book is a compilation of evidence, documents and the lower court's orders/verdict, prepared by the HC registry.

It is given to both the sides when appeal is heard. Justice A R Joshi is hearing an appeal filed by Salman against the five-year sentence awarded to him on May 6 by the sessions court in the 2002 hit-and-run case.

Salman's lawyer had earlier objected to the previous paper-book saying that some crucial documents were missing. So, the judge had directed that it be prepared afresh.

Desai had said that among other things the paper-book did not have a document pertaining to a media interview given by Ravindra Patil who was then Salman's bodyguard and who was in the car when the accident took place.

Patil, who died during the trial, had contradicted in the interview his own statement before the magistrate that the actor was driving the car in a drunken state, Salman's lawyer had alleged in an application.

The missing document was vital for the defence to prove that Patil was not telling the truth, the application said. Salman, who is on bail, did not come to the court today. Also, his family members were not present.

My son's soul can now rest in peace, says Ravindra Patil's mother

There are two versions about Salman Khan's nature. He's the lion-hearted superstar humanitarian (as he calls himself on Twitter). He is the brash and cocky bhai' who doesn't mind working his clout or fists to get what he wants. Recently, and not for the first time, the latter avatar of the actor came to the fore. He bullied a blogger into pulling down a blog post that was not to his liking.

The blog in question, Bollywoodjournalist.com, is written by an entertainment journalist, Soumyadipta Banerjee, from Mumbai. In one post, he wrote about the mysterious case of Ravindra Patil, the police constable who was assigned as a bodyguard to Khan and was in the Land Cruiser that ran over four homeless people in Bandra. In his statement to the police, Patil claimed that Khan was behind the wheel and was drunk. And that the actor had not slowed down despite Patil's advice. This is a crucial detail. A sessions court judge relied on this to rule that the actor should be tried for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304. This could mean a maximum punishment of 10 years in jail.

According to news reports, Patil was under pressure to change his statement. He went missing and was eventually discharged from the police force. He was located many months later, suffering from tuberculosis, and died in 2007.

In the blog post, Banerjee hinted that Patil was pressured by Salman's well-wishers in the police and film fraternity.

Salman wasn't happy.

He sent Banerjee a legal notice, threatening action if the posts were not taken off. Banerjee has not spoken to the media. On 8 July, he wrote on his blog, The last two days have been really excruciating for me. I have received a communication from Mr Salman Khan. There I have been instructed to remove two blog posts that I have written about him. Those articles have been removed from this blog. Here's a public apology to Mr Salman Khan for writing two blog posts that he didn't consider appropriate.'

Many are aghast at the manner in which the actor reacted. Well-known film journalist Rauf Ahmed says infotech laws are often misused to target those whose views are not convenient to people. "Salman had no right to threaten the blogger with a notice. He may not be able to take on a newspaper or a magazine for what they write. But a blogger is an easy target."