A district court in Palanpur in Banaskantha pronounced former IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt guilty in a 1996 narcotics case on Wednesday. Earlier this month, the Gujarat High Court had confirmed a life sentence for Bhatt in a separate case of alleged custodial torture.
Bhatt was superintendent of police (SP) of Banaskantha district from October 13, 1995 to October 18, 1996. In 1996, allegedly acting on Bhatt’s instructions, a police inspector named Indravadan Vyas raided a Palanpur hotel, seized 1.15 kg opium from a room, and arrested a Rajasthan-based lawyer called Sumer Singh Rajpurohit.
In October 1996, Rajpurohit submitted a complaint before a magistrate, accusing Bhatt, Vyas, and several others of framing him by planting the opium in the room. Rajpurohit claimed that Bhatt had framed him at the behest of a former judge of the Gujarat High Court over a disputed over a property where he was a tenant. In November, an FIR was lodged at Kotwali police station in Pali, Rajasthan, against 17 persons. In relation to the Palanpur FIR, Vyas subsequently filed a report under CrPC Section 169 (Release of accused when evidence deficient), admitting that the person occupying the hotel room was not Rajpurohit. Rajpurohit was discharged by the court.
Delay in the trial
In February 2000, police filed an ‘A-summary’ report (investigation suspended because of lack of evidence) in the Palanpur case. No final order was passed by the court on whether the report was accepted. In 1998, Justice R R Jain (retd), who had been named in Rajpurohit’s complaint, moved an application before Gujarat HC seeking transfer of the investigation in the 1996 Palanpur FIR from Gujarat Police to the CBI, and a reinvestigation of the Kotwali police station case either by CBI or by a police officer not below the rank of DGP.
In April 2018, Gujarat HC ordered that the Palanpur FIR should be investigated by an SIT comprising Gujarat CID Crime officials.
After HC’s 2018 directions
Bhatt was arrested in September 2018. The SIT investigation, headed by Virendrasinh Yadav (who is now Gandhinagar Range DIG), was completed, and chargesheet was filed on November 2, 2018 before an NDPS court in Palanpur against Bhatt and Vyas for offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act).
On September 18, 2019, charges were framed against Bhatt and Vyas, but not against retired Justice Jain.
These included offences under NDPS Act sections 21(c), 27A (punishment for financing illicit traffic and harbouring offenders), 29 (abetment and criminal conspiracy to commit offence under NDPS Act), 58(1) and(2) (vexatious entry, search, seizure and arrest), as well as for IPC offences under sections 465 (forgery), 471 (using forged document), 167 (public servant framing an incorrect document with intent to cause injury), 204 (secrets or destroys any document), 343 (wrongful confinement), 120B (criminal conspiracy) and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intent). In March 2021, the NDPS court accepted Vyas’ application seeking pardon from the offences in exchange of turning approver. Bhatt challenged the NDPS court’s decision before the Gujarat HC, but the appeal was rejected in August 2021.
In October 2021, the HC partially allowed a plea by Bhatt seeking access to documents pertaining to the case so as to present in the trial.
The court also directed the NDPS court to complete the trial in nine months.
Strictures against Bhatt
In August 2023, the HC rejected two applications filed by Bhatt, seeking a transfer of the trial in this case to the Palanpur district court’s seniormost additional sessions judge, and quashing of a Palanpur court order of June, in which Bhatt’s request for a transfer and a stay on the trial was rejected. The court termed Bhatt’s pleas as attempts to “scandalise and pressurise the court”. Bhatt had accused the presiding trial judge in Palanpur of “bias” and submitted before the HC that he is “not receiving fair and impartial trial”. He had said that his request for adjournments were rejected, and on two occasions, costs were imposed.
