Salman Khan was ‘disturbed' after hit-and-run case but his ‘morale was good' on set, recalls Puneet Issar: ‘Salim Khan decided that he should just work'
He also recalled a conversation with Salman's father, the legendary screenwriter Salim Khan, who asked him to guide Salman and ensure that he remained dedicated to his work. Puneet shared with Siddharth Kannan on his YouTube channel, 'Salim saaab maintained that during that phase of Salman's life, he should just work. Salim saaab told me to tell Salman to stay busy at work, and this was a collective decision taken by his family. It was a right decision and that's what he did.'
Despite the public scrutiny and speculation surrounding him at the time, Salman managed to maintain a strong work ethic and kept his morale high on set, Puneet recalled and shared, 'His morale was very good on set. He is a professional. He has a comfort zone, he works in that, he would come work out and shoot.'
In 2002, Salman Khan was accused of driving over a pavement that resulted in one death and multiple injuries. The case went on for many years and in December 2015, the Bombay High Court acquitted Salman of all charges, citing lack of sufficient evidence. Apart from this case, Salman was also involved in another high-profile legal battle. In 1998, during the filming of Hum Saath Saath Hain, he was accused of hunting endangered blackbucks. After a prolonged legal process, Salman was convicted in 2018 and sentenced to five years in prison. However, after spending two nights in Jodhpur Central Jail, a sessions court granted him bail, and he was released after three days.
Through both controversies, Salman Khan continued to maintain a steady presence in the film industry and continued to work in films.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Even Newton will roll in his grave on seeing these 5 absurd action scenes from Indian movies, handpicked by X
Laughter is the best medicine and these Indian films seems to have got the memo right. From humans flying to cars crashing with jets, a Twitter user has picked some of the most hilarious scenes from Indian films over the last few years that never fail to make us laugh. Kisi Ka Bhai Kisi Ki Jaan has Salman Khan's character saving a child like a pro. Indian Clark Kent? There's a scene from Mahesh Babu's Sarileru Neekevvaru in which he is able to stop a crime by arriving just at the nick of time, and catching hold of a huge axe flying from one end to another. No one gets hurt, the hero saves the day! Who can argue with that? Kisi ki movie kisi ka logic Salman Khan fans expect only entertainment from his films, which he amply provides. Be it over-the-top action scenes or unintentionally funny dance steps, Salman has done it all. However, there is one scene from his 2023 release Kisi Ka Bhai Kisi Ka Jaan that is on aother level altogether. It occurs during a fight scene when Salman saves the life of a small boy who is riding his bicycle in the middle of the road. He simply picks up the boy and throws him to the other side, and the boy miraculously lands on the lap of his parents in the same position, without a scratch on his body! Flying car crashes into a jet In SS Rajamouli's Magadheera, who can forget the iconic flying car scene? The car speeds off the mountain range and then crashes with the jet, and our hero Ram Charan stands at the scene like a brave witness! In Rajamouli, we trust! Newton's laws defied Allu Arjun escapes unhurt even as a hot cup of tea is hurled at him. How did he know that the cup was aimed at him? What's more concerning is that the cup felt just as it is, the tea not spilling over at all. Allu Arjun catches the cup without blinking an eye and giggles! Check out this scene from Race Gurram. Heroine saves the day, but not laws of physics Not just heroes, even heroines do not shy away from an unserious action scene in desi movie. This one from Krrish 3 shows Kangana Ranaut defy laws of physics to catch a baby in her arms. It looks awkward beyond words.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
‘Salman Khan was holding my throat with a real knife,' recalls Ashok Saraf as he opens up on a terrifying incident on the sets of ‘Jaagruti', says, 'Aise aadmi kisi ko yaad nahi rehte'
Veteran actor Ashok Saraf, fondly remembered for his impeccable comic timing and for the iconic television show 'Hum Paanch' amidst many movies has also done a negative role in his career, This was for the 1992 Salman Khan starrer Jaagruti. But what was meant to be just another scene turned into a terrifying real-life incident, one that Saraf says he will never forget. 'Jaagruti' starred Karisma Kapoor opposite Salman. In a chat with Radio Nasha Official, Saraf opened up about a near-fatal moment while shooting a tense scene. The actor revealed that while filming, a real knife was used, and things went awry when Salman Khan gripped his throat a bit too hard. 'He was holding my throat with a knife and it was a real knife. Uski jo nok hoti hai vo kaat ke gayi aise… As soon as we started saying the dialogues, I tried to escape from his hands. Salman zor se daba rahe the and then I said, 'Dheere se dabaao, katt raha hai yahan par,'' Saraf recalled. Despite the warning, the shoot continued. Saraf tried to suggest a safer way to hold the knife, but the camera angle didn't permit a change. 'He then asked me what he should do, maine bola ulta pakdo na. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Villas Prices In Dubai Might Be More Affordable Than You Think Villas In Dubai | Search Ads Get Quote Undo He said that the camera is facing towards us, dikh jaayega usme, then maine socha chhorro.' They completed the shot, but the damage had been done. 'We did the scene and when I saw later, there was a deep cut on my throat. Agar yahan ki nass katt jaati toh hum udhar hi…Main kabhi nahi bhoolunga.' Saraf added that he's unsure whether Salman even remembers the incident, quipping, 'Aise aadmi kisi ko yaad nahi rehte, bhool jaate hain.' Jaagruti, also starred Shiva Rindani, Pankaj Dheer, and Prem Chopra apart from Salman and Karisma. Despite the scare, he continued working with Salman in several hits like 'Karan Arjun', 'Pyaar Kiya To Darna Kya', and 'Bandhan.'
News18
2 hours ago
- News18
TIP-ping Point: 7/11 Blasts And Judicial Lottery
The 7/11 case has yet again raised disturbing questions about the moral compass of Indian criminal jurisprudence. The conscience of the nation stands enraged. Both possibilities speak volumes of systemic failure. Either the then coalition Government in Maharashtra in 2006 oversaw a catastrophic collapse in investigation and prosecution, letting terrorists walk free. Or we incarcerated innocent men for the last 19 years. Both scenarios paint a profoundly disturbing picture of our justice system. The 11 dark minutes of July 11, 2006, when seven coordinated bomb blasts ripped through Mumbai's suburban railway network, scarred the city forever. The carnage claimed 209 lives and injured over 700. Swift arrests followed; 13 men were accused, 12 were convicted – five sentenced to death, the rest to life imprisonment. But on July 21, 2025, the Bombay High Court acquitted all 12 convicted men. The Court found the prosecution to have faltered at the most fundamental level. The judgment exposes a central tension: a conflict between state capacity and judicial threshold. Crimes of this nature are intrinsically difficult to investigate and prosecute. Probes must navigate intricate webs of terror planning and execution, all while racing against time. Every passing moment results in evidentiary decay. Yet, when this challenge of capacity meets the rigorous standards of 'innocent until proven guilty', verdicts like the one in this case become inevitable. This case has yet again raised disturbing questions about the moral compass of Indian criminal jurisprudence. A recurring affliction in our criminal system is the doctrine of 'uncertain-fatality', an interpretive fragility that leaves outcomes to the temperaments of individual judges. The United States follows a clear standard- the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, where any illegally procured evidence is automatically inadmissible. India has adopted a different course. Indian courts are notably more liberal in admitting evidence, even if tainted by illegality, choosing instead to assign it probative value after scrutiny. Our courts separate the wheat from the chaff, i.e., they painstakingly distinguish believable evidence from the rest. Yet this process of legal surgery varies by the skill and subjectivity of the surgeon. Similar cases with similar flaws have passed the muster before other courts. But the Bombay High Court, in this case, deemed the lapses to be fatal. The real fatality, it seems, is even-handed justice. Your ability to secure relief as a kin of the deceased now hinges disproportionately on the courtroom lottery. In this case, the Bombay High Court took a sword to the scalpel, with one blow, it declared the prosecution's case to have 'utterly failed.' The concern lies not in the judges having taken a particular view, but in the inconsistency and subjectivity with which criminal justice is dispensed. The Bombay High Court, while acquitting all convicts, based its reasoning primarily on the flawed Test Identification Parade (TIP). Put simply, in a TIP, the accused is made to stand in a lineup with others of similar physique and features, and the eyewitness is invited to pick out the suspect. The very act of correctly identifying the accused lends strength and credibility to the witness's courtroom testimony. Under Section 7 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, TIP serves a dual purpose: first, it helps the investigating agency confirm if they are on the right track; second, it offers corroboration for in-court identification. It becomes a critical evidentiary tool, helping place the accused at the relevant location and time. The procedure, however, is stringent. TIPs must be conducted by a Magistrate, not the police, and preferably within jail premises to minimise external influence. Witnesses must be called individually, barred from communication with each other, and asked to describe what they saw. Every reaction must be recorded in detail. In this case, the Bombay High Court excluded the identification evidence entirely. It held that TIPs were conducted by Shri Barve, a Special Executive Officer, who had no legal authority to carry them out. This procedural violation- TIPs must be supervised by a Magistrate, was not a mere technical lapse. According to the Court, it rendered the identification process void and left it open to manipulation. Consequently, the identifications made by witnesses were deemed inadmissible. The prosecution, which had heavily relied on these TIPs, now found itself without the very foundation of its case. What remained was dock identification, witnesses identifying the accused in court nearly four years later. But that raised a pivotal legal question: can someone credibly identify an individual they only saw momentarily, years ago, without memory aids or prior interaction? The High Court concluded they could not. No distinguishing features. No extended observation. No credibility. Thus, even the courtroom identifications were stripped of their evidentiary weight. The very eyewitness testimony on which the prosecution had built its case crumbled, ironically, not due to falsehood, but due to the prosecution's own procedural lapses. This would be an acceptable outcome, had other courts taken such a strict approach. But that is not the case. Courts across India continue to admit TIP evidence despite glaring procedural irregularities. That inconsistency needs urgent review by the Supreme Court of India. Another major blow to the prosecution was its reliance on stock witnesses- individuals who appear as panch or eyewitnesses in multiple unrelated cases. For instance, Vishal Parmar claimed to have seen Accused No. 4 board the train with a black rexine bag and disembark without it. The Court flagged him as unreliable, as he had served as a panch witness in multiple prior cases, including those involving officers from this very trial. His employer, Mukesh Rabadiya, was similarly discredited as a stock witness. Yet in Nana Keshav Lagad v. State of Maharashtra (2013), the Supreme Court clarified that merely appearing as a witness in multiple cases does not invalidate testimony by itself. This raises legitimate questions about the Bombay High Court's choice to outright dismiss such testimony here. The trouble is, this was bound to happen. When judicial discretion is left unbounded by consistent thresholds, some courts interpret lapses as fatal, others see them as fixable. This divergence undermines the rule of law. And the stakes are extraordinarily high in cases involving such enormous human tragedy. Just as troubling is the message this sends to the investigative machinery: that mistakes may or may not matter, depending on the bench. Impunity thrives in uncertainty. We urgently need clear, consistent, and constitutionally sound standards, replacing what has become a wild west of discretion in criminal procedure. Criminal justice must be precise. We must know what is acceptable and what is not. top videos View all The Supreme Court has issued notice in the criminal appeal. The legal questions answered by the Bombay High Court now await constitutional scrutiny. The author is a Senior Supreme Court Advocate and former Additional Solicitor General of India. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views. tags : 2006 Mumbai Train Blasts Mumbai train blasts view comments Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: July 28, 2025, 15:57 IST News opinion Opinion | TIP-ping Point: 7/11 Blasts And Judicial Lottery Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
