As this column goes to press, Justice Ravindra Kumar Joshi, Jodhpur sessions judge, has reserved till Saturday his judgement on Bollywood superstar Salman Khan’s bail plea. Qaidi no. 106, for such is Salman’s official designation, will thus spend at least one more night in Jodhpur Central Jail. Incidentally, he has been housed in Barrack no. 2, in a cell next to undertrial guru, Asaram Bapu’s. Salman was recently convicted to five-year jail term for killing two blackbucks in 1998. The 1965 born actor, the media is never tired of reminding us, has more than Rs 500 crore of Bollywood business riding on his back. He is also known for his philanthropic activities in the last few years. As MP and senior actor Jaya Bachchan said, “I feel bad. Salman Khan should have been given relief as he has done a lot of Humanitarian work.” Many share her sentiments. In the industry itself, Bhai, as he is called, is highly regarded. He has also launched or boosted many a career, not just of leading ladies or Bollywood beauties, but of extras, bit actors, technicians, cinematographers, directors, and producers. He thus enjoys much goodwill in the industry, not to speak of the adulation of millions of fans. But what has this to do with the case? Sadly, very little. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dev Kumar Khatri, who sentenced him observed, “The accused is a popular actor whose deeds are followed by people. Despite this, the accused hunted two blackbucks.” This implies that the punishment, if not exemplary, is certainly severe, seemingly taking into account the added responsibility that a film star or celebrity faces as a role model for society. Actually, this verdict was delivered after Salman was acquitted in three prior cases of poaching wild and endangered animals. All of them date back to 1998, when he, along with his co-accused stars Saif Ali Khan, Tabu, Sonali Bendre, and Neelum, were filming Hum Saath Saath Hain. Twelve years back, in 2006, Salman was convicted in two cases of poaching and sentenced to two jail terms, or one and five years respectively. But the Rajasthan High Court suspended the sentences and, in 2016, both convictions were overturned. Last year, the actor was acquitted in the third case too, which was for possessing an unlicensed firearm to hunt wild animals. Salman was also tried in a hit-and-run case in 2002. One man died and four were injured when the actor’s Toyota Land Cruiser allegedly ran over the sleeping men on a footpath. But in 2015, the Bombay High Court acquitted Salman in this case too. The Sessions Court had held that it was the inebriated actor, not his chauffeur, who was driving the car. The High Court ruled otherwise, ruling that the evidence of the policeman, who was the key witness in the lower court’s verdict, was unreliable. The policeman himself was dead, therefore not available for re-examination. There can be no conclusive answers to such questions of comparative ethics and morality. But it is hoped that the Indian judicial system, in its wisdom, will not only uphold the law, but also serve the ends of justice. Wouldn’t it, therefore, be fair to say that Salman Khan must serve time for his crime, but if his sentence were commensurate with his offence rather than being excessive, it might send the right signal to the world about the efficacy of our justice system?