Priya Dutt skips brother Sanjay Dutt's New Year bash http://t.co/IxsodYVSA2 pic.twitter.com/rqQBaGvqih



— dna (@dna) January 1, 2015

IN PICS - Inside Sanjay Dutt’s New Year party http://t.co/DgvVoWKKXD pic.twitter.com/goXq1ejSBM



— The Indian Express (@IndianExpress) January 1, 2015

For actor Sanjay Dutt, the road from prison leads straight to a party venue. The Mumbai paparazzi have performed an important public service over the past few days of exposing Dutt’s claims that he needed furlough from his prison sentence for medical reasons. Photographs of guests streaming in for an “intimate” New Year dinner at Dutt’s residence in suburban Mumbai indicate that the actor is making the most of his furlough, his third since May 2013, when he started serving the remainder of a five-year prison term for illegally possessing and destroying arms in the March 1993 serial blasts case One of Dutt’s first public acts after arriving in Mumbai from Yerawada Central Jail in Pune was to lift his singlet and show off his recently acquired flat stomach and chiselled chest ‒ a major achievement for a man who is 55 as well for a convict supposedly sweating it out in India’s notoriously under-equipped prisons.Dutt also attended a special screening of Rajkumar Hirani’s PK, in which he plays a small role (pictured atop).The actor-producer convict exited Yerawada on Christmas Eve on a 14-day furlough. Given his high-profile status, he is unlikely to go absconding. This argument seems to have persuaded the Director General (Prisons) to grant Dutt furlough twice already, and then grant him extensions both times on medical grounds. The state doesn’t seem to show the same empathy towards other prisoners, especially those who have been convicted in crimes linked to terrorism. The Home Ministry of Maharashtra has ordered an inquiry into the repeated concessions made to Dutt.The Sanjay Dutt controversy proves that in Bollywood, if you belong to the creamy layer, you can be innocent even after proven guilty.The self-enclosed Hindi film world lives by its own value system, and only some of its mores overlap with the social codes that govern ordinary people. This world of showbiz displays a refreshing lack of outrage at individual acts of transgression (extra-marital affairs, bankruptcies, personal meltdowns) and a genuine tolerance for people of all faiths, creeds, income levels, sartorial styles and achievement levels. There is a general sense that the film tribe will take care of its members when they stray. Unfortunately, where cash cows are concerned, this logic sometimes extend to crimes of a serious nature.Whatever the courts have to say about actors in trouble such as Sanjay Dutt or Salman Khan, many in the industry believe them to be victims of misfortune or frame-ups. Rajkumar Hirani, whose movies use comedy to explore social issues and moral dilemmas, clearly believes that whatever Dutt’s faults, his life story is fodder for the imagination. After giving Dutt two of his most memorable roles in Munnabhai MBBS and Lage Rao Munnabhai, the filmmaker is planning a biopic on the actor. The planned movie, starring Ranbir Kapoor, promises to be warts-and-all depiction of Dutt’s tumultuous life, which includes drug abuse, failed marriages, numerous flops and alleged links with gangsters.Salman Khan’s is even more complicated than Dutt’s. Khan is probably the only actor in the history of cinema to be accused of killing both human beings as well as protected animals. In 2002, in a drunk driving incident, Khan allegedly killed a pavement dweller, and injured three others in Mumbai. In 2006, he was accused of being part of a hunting party that killed an endangered Chinkara deer.There have also been unsubstantiated allegations in the past, which swirled across gossip columns but never reached the police stations, of violence towards girlfriends.Notoriety has always boosted celebrity status and has had the potential of allowing concerns of ethics and propriety to be overridden – if nothing else, infamy helps public personalities grab slots on television reality shows like Bigg Boss. Khan’s "bad boy" image has tremendously boosted his appeal among his fans. He is regarded as a singular man who follows his own rulebook and is beholden to nobody but his own conscience. As the cases against him proceed in slow motion through the courts, Khan has sought to remake his public image through acts of charity. Khan has been so unsullied by these criminal cases, even Narendra Modi, before he became the prime minister, flew a kite with him at a public event in Ahmedabad in January.While box office adoration can be a solid insurance against criticism or possible prosecution, even second-rung actor Shiney Ahuja got the support of some filmmakers when he was accused of raping his maid-servant in 2009. Even before the courts had reached a verdict, directors such as Sudhir Mishra declared that Ahuja had been falsely accused of the crime and deserved redemption. (He was convicted in 2011 but later received bail.)But Ahuja crossed a line. In Bollywood, while killing people is pardonable, rape is not. It is likely that even if Ahuja had pleased more financers and producers and created a larger fan base, he might have not have got away.However, illegal possession of a weapon is not quite in this league. Nor are accusations of public misbehaviour, such as roughing up a fellow customer at a restaurant (as Saif Ali Khan did at the Taj Mahal Hotel in Mumbai) or violating zoning regulations (as Shah Rukh Khan has done with his home in Mumbai).Are these celebrities being hounded because of their fame? Or do they believe that they can get away with misbehaviour because they are not mortals and are subject to a different set of codes?Perhaps Sanjay Dutt believes that he might never get out on furlough again, which is why he is unabashedly in celebration mode. Or perhaps he believes that since public memory is short, he might be able to pull the trick one more time.Whatever his motivations, Dutt is leaving a photo trail. The paparazzi are usually reviled for hounding movie actors, but in this instance, violating the actor's privacy is turning out to be a matter of public interest.