News

Salman Khan appeared before Jodhpur court for bail bond


The Tubelight actor returned to Rajasthan to sign the bail bonds in violation of the Arms Act,

Photo: Shutterbugs Images

IANS

Actor Salman Khan appeared in a court on Friday in for verification of his bail bonds in a case related to violation of the Arms Act.

Salman was to appear in the court of Jodhpur District and Sessions Judge, but he remained present in the court of Additional District Judge as the post of district judge is lying vacant.

Salman, on reaching the court, produced and verified the personal bail bonds of Rs20,000. Also, the bail bonds of the same value were produced by his surety Rajkumar Sharma, a local resident.

Additional Sessions Judge SP Parik after verification of documents as well as of the bail bonds, posted the matter for arguments on 5 October.

Salman remained in the court for hardly five minutes, during which the court asked him general questions in regard to his name and address, which he responded calmly.

"It is a routine procedure of the court and every accused is required to appear before the appellate court once. We have also followed the procedure," Salman's advocate Hastimal Saraswat told the media.

Asked if Salman will appear in court on 5 October, Saraswat said he will definitely come if the court calls him.

However, Saraswat denied personal appearance of Salman before the local court on Saturday in the case related to blackbuck poaching in which he is an accused along with several other Bollywood celebrities.

Salman and a few others from the cast were accused of poaching blackbucks on the midnight of 1-2 October 1998, during the shooting of Sooraj Barjatya's Hum Saath-Saath Hain (1999).

Salman is accused of carrying and using illegal arms also as he was alleged to have been carrying arms with expired licence. A case under different sections of the Arms Act was registered against him thereafter.

Salman was acquitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in this case in January. However, the state government challenged this verdict in an appeal.