Salman Khan’s bail plea was rejected a second time today; he was remanded in judicial custody till October 21.The Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court at Bandra denied bail to Salman, in custody for the September 28 hit-and-run case. Later, he approached the Sessions Court. It will take up his bail plea on October 16.Additional Metropolitan Magistrate S.Y. Shisode said the court was not inclined to grant bail, particularly in an ‘‘offence which is exclusively a trial of Sessions’’. Khan has been charged under IPC Section 304 (Part II) for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.Shisode said the investigation is incomplete and a chargesheet is yet to be filed. ‘‘The court has to see whether there are reasonable grounds for believing whether the case is a genuine case against the accused,’’ he said. It was an admitted position, Shisode said, that Khan was intoxicated while driving when the accident occurred.On October 11, the magistrate had rejected a similar bail plea by the actor. Public Prosecutor M. Raut, however, did not oppose the plea today. He said interrogation was complete, though the investigation was still on.Police custody was unnecessary, he said, and the court may use its discretion to grant Salman bail. If granted, he should be directed to report to Bandra police station daily, Raut said.The courtroom was packed with reporters, advocates, and Salman’s family and friends. Arbaaz Khan, sister Alvira, brother-in-law Atul Agnihotri, Bunty Walia, and Tajdaar Amrohi were among those present.At the Sessions Court, Judge P.V. Bavkar directed police to produce before the court all documents on the investigation. Salman’s application said no purpose would be served by detaining him further, except as ‘‘pre-trial punishment’’.He said he could not be charged under Section 304 (Part II) just because a person died and four others were injured. At worst, Salman said, his was a rash act that could come under the purview of Section 304A.The application argued that investigation on the vehicle was sufficiently over and he has ‘‘been in custody for a long period of time’’. So he should be given bail, subject to terms.
