-
8/9/2019 Salman Khan v Maharashtra
1/3
om
bay Hi
gh Co
urt
pro.1.APPANo.5922015.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.592 OF 2015IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.572 OF 2015
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.572 OF 2015
Salman Salim Khan ... Applicant V/s.
State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
.....Mr.Harish Salve Senior Advocate with Mr.Shrikant Shivade
withMr.Niranjan Mundargi with Mr.Anand Desai with Mr.Nirav Shah
with Ms.Chandrima Mitra with Mr.Manhar S.Saini, Advocate forthe
Applicant.Mr.S.S.Shinde, Public Prosecutor with Mr.Deepak Thakre,
APP forthe Respondent.
....
CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY J.
DATED : 6TH MAY 2015
P.C. :
1. This appeal, which has been filed today, has been
placed on board on being mentioned for production on the
ground
of urgency. The appellant has been convicted of offences
punishable under Sections 304 Part II of the Indian Penal
Code
(IPC), 338 of the IPC, 337 of the IPC and offences
punishable
under Motor Vehicles Act. He has been sentenced to different
terms of Imprisonment in respect of various offences of which
he
Gaikwad RD 1/3
::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2015 20:18:56 :::
-
8/9/2019 Salman Khan v Maharashtra
2/3
om
bay Hi
gh Co
urt
pro.1.APPANo.5922015.doc
has been found guilty. The most severe sentence imposed upon
the applicant/appellant is in respect of the offence
punishable
under Section 304 Part II of the IPC, which is of Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of 5 (five) years and fine of
Rs.25,000/-. The Judgment of the trial Court has been
delivered
today itself.
2. The urgency in the matter is arising out of the fact that
the appellant, who was throughout on bail, is likely to be taken
in
custody, on conviction. It is submitted that though the
applicant/appellant has been convicted, copy of the impugned
Judgment had not been delivered to him yet. That the copy is
not
so delivered, is not in dispute.
3. Mr.S.K.Shinde, the learned Public Prosecutor submits
that appeal is not competent, inasmuch as, it is not
accompanied
by a copy of the impugned Judgment. Though this appears to
be
correct, in view of the admitted position that the copy of
the
impugned judgment had not been delivered to the
applicant/appellant at all, it would not be proper to deny
the
urgent relief sought for by the appellant, which is in the
nature of
continuation of his bail for some further period. This is
particularly so, because the Court time is getting over; and
even
otherwise, it would not be possible to hear elaborate arguments
on
the merits of the conviction, without knowing the contents of
the
Judgment delivered by the trial Court.
Gaikwad RD 2/3
::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2015 20:18:56 :::
-
8/9/2019 Salman Khan v Maharashtra
3/3
om
bay Hi
gh Co
urt
pro.1.APPANo.5922015.doc
4. Since the applicant/appellant was on bail throughout
the trial, and since a copy of the impugned judgment of
conviction
has not yet been furnished to him, it would be proper to
protect
the appellant for some time in the interest of justice.
5. On hearing Mr.Harish Salve, the learned counsel for
the applicant/appellant, it appears that there is a possibility
of the
appellant securing a copy of the judgment by 8th May 2015.
6. In view of this, it is directed that the appeal be listed
on board, for admission, on 8th May 2015 .
7. In the meantime, the applicant/ appellant shall be
permitted to remain on the same bail as was granted to him
during the trial, but on executing a fresh bond before the
trial
Court.
8. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this
Order.
9. Leave to amend the appeal memo by annexing a copy
of the judgment as soon as it is made available and also by
incorporating additional grounds, if so desired.
(ABHAY M. THIPSAY J.)
Gaikwad RD 3/3
::: Downloaded on 06/05/2015 20:18:56 :::
