LiesFinding it amongst the

Uncovering the real person …

Having failed in all attempts to any how keep the Gujarat riots issues alive and to politically victimize Shri Narendra Modi, the Indian National Congress, Ms. Teesta Setalvad and other vested interest groups CREATED one witness viz. Sanjiv Bhatt, an officer known to be close to Shri Shankarsinh Waghela.  Sanjiv Bhatt, after a period of 10 years suddenly sent an unsolicited affidavit to the Supreme Court making reckless allegations against the Chairman and members of the SIT. Hon’ble Supreme Court did not even take the said affidavit on record and DISPOSED OF the SLP No. 1088/2008 filed by Smt. Jakia Jaffery, which is filed at the behest of Ms.Teesta Setalvad who was petitioner no.2 in the said petition.

Sanjiv Bhatt, when confronted with the obvious question as to where was he since 2002 and why he has aggressively started campaigning against Chief Minister of Gujarat, justifies the delay by contending that “he was under the oath of secrecy” and also that he could not have said anything “unless called upon by a legally empowered body” Sanjiv Bhatt was called by the SIT when he contemptuously said that he will not give his statement unless the same is recorded in a registered criminal offence. This stand of Shri Sanjiv Bhatt was deliberate to create ground for his lies. 

Shri Sanjiv Bhatt also knew that the SIT was recording statements under the judicial orders passed by the highest judiciary of the country Shri Sanjiv Bhatt was also aware that everyone who respected the proceedings of the SIT and have given their statements before the SIT were also important statutory/constitutional functionaries and were also “under the oath of secrecy” when they were discharging their respective functions during riots.  It was only Shri Sanjiv Bhatt who declined to honor the proceedings being conducted by the SIT not only as per the judicial orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court but under the supervision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court itself.

The reason was obvious and not far to seek. He wanted to bring pressure upon the State Government and its political leadership to achieve his career agenda and simultaneously help Ms. Teesta Setalvad and other vested interest/political groups to achieve some ulterior purpose or benefit by keeping a threat of his potential false statement hanging. There could never be any other legitimate reason for a police officer to refuse to give his statement before a judicially constituted SIT on fanciful pretext that he was “under the oath of secrecy” which did not prevent him from leaking his affidavit and giving press interviews to the electronic and print media.

Even the Hon’ble Commission of Inquiry, after summoning him on his affidavit asked him during his deposition before it as to why after 2002 public notice by commission? He has not even filed affidavit before commission or came forward with this version as stated in affidavit, though it was legally binding and obligatory for him to do so as per Commission of Inquiries Act, 1952 as contended in the complaint of Zakia Jaffrey,and equally liable to be punished with other 63 alleged accused. 

Most importantly, it must be noted that, subsequently, Shri R.B.Shreekumar, IPS has addressed a letter to Sanjiv Bhatt and a copy of the same is marked to the Commission of Inquiry on 28.12.2011 which was given wide media publicity.

“ ……infact Shri Sanjiv Bhatt did not accompany me in any of the conferences or meetings chaired by senior officers and the chief minister which were attended by me” “ …you did display the required skill in proceedings and manipulating information and had conveniently surpassed the first directive of the former DGP Shri K Chakravarthy which I had referredto in my para 6 and 7. let me therefore remind you that in his letter dated 18.6.2002, the then DGP shri Chakravathy had directed all commissioners of police, additional DGP CID ( crime and intelligence) adnl. DGP (Intelligence), all superintendents of police and all range incharge officers to file affidavits before the Commission. I had requested you and other senior officer in the state intelligence bureau to file an affidavit at that juncture, which you had declined and you had done the same latter when the second directive was issued by DGP shri A.K.Bhargav. However, you choose to quote only the second letter by DGP and conveniently surpassed the first letter by the then DGP, which did provide you the right kind of freedom to expose all that, now you are claiming to have wage a war against.”

“….Moreover, you are aware that under section 6 of the Commission of Inquiry Act, any information given to the commission can not be used against the deponent except for perjury. May I now ask what prevented you from filling an affidavit then? Please note that I filed my 3rd & 4th affidavits suo moto, while I was in service, without any direction from the higher officers. Similar action was reportedly taken by shri Rahul Sharma IPS also. Does your prolonged silence owes its genesis ulterior motive hitherto known to people?”

“ …the plethora of incriminating information against the government, which you claim to posses now, had not been put up to me at the time of filling my 1st affidavit on July 15, 2002. having noticed that such material was not included in my 1st affidavit, what stopped you from filling a separate affidavit bringing this relevant inputs to the notice of commission? Plz note that nearly 12 intelligence reports produced by you to me at the time of preparation of my first affidavit were included in it. This did not contain anything about the role of government official in planning and execution of anti-minority genocide and subsequent prolonged subversion of the criminal justice system(CJS) to deny and delay justice to the riot victims. Even today instead of filling affidavit you are asking for so much of data from government.”

“ ……I as your senior too had requested you alongwith others to file an affidavit in this connection, to which you had turned a deaf ear. There is absolutely no need for any direction from the commission or any judicial body to anybody for filling an affidavit. You know that you had suomoto filed an affidavit in Hon’ble Supreme Court and in this affidavit also for reasons best known to you, the full facts regarding government role in the riots, subversion of CJS and tempering the PIL of Ms Mallika Sarabhai were not presented.”

The third stage of Shri Sanjiv Bhatt’s cunning strategy started when he suddenly gave media interviews in local print media that one Asgar Ali, one of the accused in Haren Pandya’s murder case, had told him in the year 2003 (when Shri Bhatt was a Jail Superintendent, Sabarmati Central prison in which Asagar Ali was an inmate) that he (Asagar Ali) never killed Shri Haren Pandya, but it was one Tulsiram Prajapati who killed him. This averment has come out to be utter nonsense as Tulsiram Prajapati was in MP jail when late Haren Pandya was killed. Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, thus, tried to link up Soharabuddin/Tulasiram Prajapati encounter with the murder of Shri Haren Pandya after 9-10 years.

It is not understood as to why Shri Sanjiv Bhatt did not bring this fact to the notice of anyone including the CBI (which was conducting the investigation into Shri Haren Pandya’s murder) in 2003.

the REAL story

Who is Sanjiv Bhatt?!

• Born: 21 Dec 1963 - Mumbai

• Family: Gujarati

• School: Hill Grange High School , Mumbai

St Xaviers High School, Ahmedabad

• College: M.Sc. from IIT Mumbai

o thus identifies himself as an IITian

• Sports person: Claims to be an avid sports person

o even regularly avoided attending parades and PTs

Growing up …

• Joined IPS in 1988 - Gujarat cadre

• Poor reputation from the beginning• Members of his DPC were hesitant to

confirm him as IPS - perplexed and disappointed by his attitude and dedication

• Career history of manipulation, political maneuvering• eg. wrested undue favours claiming to be only

upper caste Gujarati IPS in the state

All along delinquent career!

Remained ASP level officer while others got senior time scales

Promotions from senior time scale to DIG: (4 promotions simultaneously)

• As Shri Bhatt is a 1988 Batch IPS officer he was entitled to get senior time scale on 1/7/92 but on account of above mentioned pending departmental inquiries he was not granted senior time scale. Resultantly he was not entitled to get junior administrative grade, selection grade and DIG grade along with his Batch mates. However, the State Government dropped all the 3 departmental inquiries against Shri Bhatt vide order dated 5.8.2005, 3.9.2005 and 24/7/2006. The State Government gave promotions in Senior Time Scale on 13/9/2007, in junior administrative grade, selection grade, and DIG grade all the three promotions by holding 2 special DPCs on one day on 21.9.2007. Therefore Shri Bhatt got 3 more promotions i.e. in Junior Administrative Grade on 21/9/2001, in Selection Grade on 3/12/2008, and in DIG grade on 29/9/2007.

• However, though his batch mates and juniors have been promoted as IGs, Shri Sanjiv Bhatt has not been promoted because of number of departmental inquiries pending against him.

 

Answering the call of duty!?A ignominious trail of DERELICTION OF DUTY and even worse, ABUSE OF POWER

• There was a Bandh Call in Jamjodhpur • As ASP, Jamnagar - Bhatt was sent in to maintain law

& order• His actions resulted in more than 100 people

suffering fractures – with 1 dying subsequently• Private complaint was lodged against him and others• Commission of Inquiry found him guilty• He dodged trial for more than 21 years - adopting

various tricks in cohort with power brokers

• Present Status: He is finally going to be tried for murder – providing the victims a glimmer of hope for justice

1. Jamjodhpur

• Rajpipla - previously a princely state, now HQ, Narmada district

• As ASP, Rajpipla – Bhatt enjoyed a royal ego and lifestyle • Rumours abound of his colorful escapades there

• Preferred staying in palace over government accommodation – and had to in fact be forcefully evicted from the royal accommodation given to him by the royal family

• He took with him numerous valuable antique pieces and chandeliers when he finally left

• In retaliation - he got a false offence filed by a Tribal Mali against the Royal family

2. Rajpipla

• As SP, Banaskantha from Oct.1995 to Jun.1996 – Bhatt blatantly abused his authority for personal benefit

• He was charge-sheeted on 30.9.1999 for keeping more orderlies than sanctioned

• Bhatt kept at his residence at Banaskantha SP’s Bunglow:• 1 head constable - 8 constables• 3 constables for attending telephone calls• 3 constables for Picket duties• 3 commandos• 4 constable for guard duties• 12 constable for striking force, and • 3 constables for gardening

3. Banaskantha

As SP, Patan - Bhatt declined from vacating a cottage illegally occupied by him at Mehsana Water Park

He got innocent businessmen illegally lifted and extorted money threatening them with cases under NDPS Act

4. Patan / Mehsana

• In his stint as DCP, Rajkot from Jun.1996 to Feb.1997 - the Government was compelled to transfer Bhatt out within 8 months

Misbehaviour with CP, Rajkot• To help Kirit Kundaliya vacate an alleged encroacher

from his land in Rajkot – Bhatt, had gotten liquor bottles planted in the house of the alleged encroacher and then conducted a raid to evict him – in return for payment.

• His above action led to a public argument between him and the then CP Rajkot on 8-9 Oct.1996 - in the presence of a number of policemen in a Police Station at Pradyumna nagar.

• Bhatt misbehaved with the CP (present DGP of the state) – and was transferred out of Rajkot in Feb.1997

5. Rajkot

• Continuing his previous practice of over-indulgence, Bhatt kept 22 constables at his residence in Rajkot

• Allotted Bungalow No.5 on Race Course Road – he indulged in illuminating his bungalow like a hotel – and did not even pay the consequently large electricity bills on being transferred out

• Bhatt stooped low enough to even take away all the trees and plants in his Bungalow on his transfer

• Show cause notices for all his such misconducts were issued

5. Rajkot

Dalpatsinh Rathod - a big bootlegger with Hotels on Abu Road – was apprehended by LCB P. Jalla and PSI R.R. Limbadia with Rs. 1 crore in cash. Bhatt did not make any case against him despite his being caught red handed – in return for a large sum

Bhatt got a false offence registered against Dera Prema Rajput - a resident of Lavala, Deodar Taluka - under Prohibition Act bearing CR No.35 - to extort money

Bhatt got a false case filed at Vav against a dealer in Pos-Doda - under the Narcotics Act - through PSI C.P. Chudasama to extort money

Extortions – from citizens to bootleggers

Under Bhatt’s instructions, Zakir of Deesa - a Hotel owner - was illegally arrested and kept in custody for 15 days by PI P.J. Chaudhury and a large sum extorted for his release

Gomji from Sanchor, Rajasthan - a dealer in opium –was lifted by PI P.J. Chaudhury and kept in illegal custody for five days, until a large amount was extorted for his release

Bhatt extorted money from the Porbandar mafia as well – planting bullets in the flat of mafia member Iku Gagan, and then getting PSI Dharmendra Sinh Chauhan to conduct a raid

Extortions – even from opium dealers and mafia

• As SP, Banaskantha – Bhatt had a criminal complaint filed against him in 1996 by Sumer Singh Rajpurohit - an advocate practicing at Pali, Rajasthan

• Sumer Singh was a tenant of the sister of R.R. Jain - a then sitting Judge of the Gujarat High Court

• To get the tenant evacuated for the rented premises - Bhatt, and his subordinate officers planted more than 1 kg of narcotic drugs in a hotel room in Palanpur, Gujarat; and showed that Sumer Singh was occupying the same, even though he was at Pali, Rajasthan

• Next, on the instructions of Bhatt - Sumer Singh was abducted by police staff from Pali at midnight of 2.5.1996, and brought to Palanpur in Gujarat

• Under pressure, Sumer Singh vacated the property – and physical possession was immediately handed over to the sister of R.R. Jain

• Bhatt had then released Sumer Singh (on 8.5.1996) - after filing a report u/s 169 Cr.P.C., in which it was stated that Sumer Singh could not be identified in the Test Identification Parade

Abductions – case of Advocate from Pali, Rajasthan

Gujarat Govt fined Rs. 1 lakh by National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) because of Bhatt’s illegal abduction

• On 1.6.1996, Siddheshwar Puri, Secretary, Bar Association, Pali Rajasthan - submitted a complaint to the NHRC – alleging the above wrongful arrest and detention of Sumer Singh by Gujarat Police; falsely implicating him in a made up narcotics case under section 17 of NDPS Act registered at Palanpur, Gujarat

• National Human Rights Commission vide its order dated 15.9.2010, No. 2147/96-97/NHRC/FC ordered the Gujarat Government to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lakh monetary relief to Sumer Singh within 8 weeks and send a compliance report with proof of payment

• As per NHRC directive, the Gujarat Government issued an order dated 23.12.2010, to pay the amount – with the cheque issued on 25.1.2011

• Present status: Bhatt has been directed by the Gujarat Government to deposit the fine amount of Rs 1 lakh

Abductions – case of Advocate from Pali, Rajasthan

• As DCP, Rajkot - for trivial reasons, Bhatt tied 2 people to a tree completely naked in full public view in the Commissionerate office compound. The victims - Vasant Bagdai and Mahendra - were subjected to such public humiliation at around noon and publicly beaten up in Sep-Oct 1996

• As DCP, Rajkot - Bhatt had got electric current administered on Babu Jalaram Lotterywala in his own DCP Chamber

Torture & Abuse

Pending departmental inquiry against Shri Bhatt at present:

• Shri Bhatt was charge-sheeted vide order dated 29.12.10 for irregularities in police recruitment in May, 1996 under the Chairmanship of Shri Bhatt when he was working as SP, Banaskantha. Shri Bhatt has not yet submitted his defence statement.

• At present Shri Bhatt is posted in DIG grade as Principal SRP Training Centre, Junagadh vide Govt. order dated 1/9/2010. He remained absent from the duties for which repeated directions were given to him. Departmental Inquiry was instituted against him and he was suspended for gross indiscipline. The Government has served charge-sheet to him 0on 19th September 2011.

 Pending preliminary inquiry against Shri Bhatt at present:

• Preliminary inquiry has been instituted for the misuse of official resources by Shri Sanjiv Bhatt when he was posted as Additional Director General of Civil Defence.

• Inquiry has been initiated by the Director General of Civil Defence for misusing official vehicles.

• Inquiry is in advance stage in the matter where Shri Sanjiv Bhatt got issued more weapons than he is authorized and unauthorisedly taking away weapons without recording the same in the official Register. Serious misconduct amounting to offence under the Arms Act is involved.

 

Separating the Truth from the Lies

• Shri Sanjiv Bhatt has been in touch with some of the State Congress leaders, NGOs and Media persons as his email exchanges disclose. If the email exchanges of Shri Sanjiv Bhatt are considered then it is amply clear that Sanjiv Bhatt has been in touch with these elements with certain ulterior motive, may be to bargain with the government to settle his numerous departmental inquiries and criminal cases.

Bhatt’s Sly & Conniving Approach

• Bhatt woke up to his allegations over 9 years after the incident

• the allegations against the Chief Minister (CM) – regarding his alleged illegal directions on 27.2.2002 - have already been comprehensively investigated and rejected by the SIT.

• The investigation into the riot cases of the year 2002 is completed by the SIT and the trials are going on strictly in accordance with the order passed by this Honorable Court dated 1st May 2009 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.109 of 2003.

Affidavit – Supreme Court

• It may be mentioned that Shri Sanjiv Bhatt did not file any affidavit before the Justice Nanavati and Justice A. H. Mehta Inquiry Commission on the alleged facts as he is coming out now, neither he provided any information when the then Addl. DGP in charge of the State Intelligence Bureau Shri R. B. Shreekumar filed affidavit on behalf of the department in the said Inquiry Commission. The electronic media interview given by Shri R. B. Shreekumar on 24th April 2011 bears testimony to it.

Affidavit – Supreme Court

• So far as the complaint of Smt. Zakia Naseem Ahesan Jaffrey dated 8th June 2006 is concerned, the said complaint is already examined by the SIT pursuant to order dated 27th April 2009 passed by this Honorable Court in SLP (Criminal) No.1088 of 2008

• The Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued final direction in its order dated 12th September 2011

• The judicial process will continue as per law. The allegation being made against the state government on private FIR lodged independently by Shri K. D. Panth said to be with a view to falsely implicate, pressurize and intimidate Shri Bhatt is wild and baseless.

Zakia Jaffrey’s Case

• He has cited the support of a driver, who allegedly took him to the CM’s residence where the meeting took place. In fact the driver Shri Tarachand Yadav had been dismissed from the service long back for serious misconduct of forgery of certificates to obtain the driver’s job. Shri K. D. Panth has denied his presence in Gandhinagar on 27-02-2002.

• It is strange that the statement of the disgruntled officer and the dismissed driver are being given such hype while ignoring the statements of other most senior Police and IAS officers who remained present during the meeting on 27th February 2002.

Driver - Yadav

• Shri K. D. Panth is a Police Constable in the Police Department in Gujarat. He had been cited by Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, suspended IPS officer of Gujarat cadre as witness to his alleged presence in the meeting at the Chief Minister’s residence on 27-02-2002. Shri Sanjiv Bhatt took Shri K. D. Panth before the SIT looking in to the complaint of Mrs. Zakia Ahesan Jaffrey and suo motu produced him as his witness.

• Later on Shri Panth recollected that he was not present in the State during the time when the said alleged meeting was held on 27-02-2002. He recollected the fact that he along with his relatives had gone to Mumbai on 25.02.2002 & returned to Gandhinagar on 28.02.2002. Shri K. D. Panth wrote to the SIT about the facts and wanted correct his stand.

• However, on 16-06-2011Shri Sanjiv Bhatt coaxed Shri KD Panth to meet him as his statement was allegedly required for strengthening his case on his demand for security cover. When Shri Panth along with one Shri Shrenik Shah met Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, he was taken before a Notary in the midnight and forced him to make an affidavit.

Constable - Panth

• Shri K. D. Panth realizing that he has been duped and coerced by Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, immediately on 17.06.2011 filed an affidavit before the Executive Magistrate, Gandhinagar narrating about the facts and incident which took place in the night intervening 16.06.2011 & 17.06.2001.

• Regarding this incident Shri Panth lodged a complaint in Ghatlodia Police station on 22.06.2011. The Police registered an offence vide I. C. R. No. 149/2011 applying IPC sections 189, 193,195, 341 and 342.

• In this connection Shri Panth’s statement under section 161 of CrPC was recorded by the Investigation Officer Shri N. C. Patel, under videography at his own request. Later on he recorded his statement before Ld. Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad Rural at Mirjapur Court u/s 164 CrPC on 30.06.2011.

• I.O. of this offence has also recorded the statement of witness of this case namely Shrenik Shah. This witness also gave evidence under section 164 CrPC before the Ld. Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad Rural at Mirjapur Court.

• Mr. Shrenik Shah who is a witness in this case of Ghatlodia Police Station I.C.R. No. 149/11 was threatened to compel Shri KD Panth to withdraw the FIR or face dire consequences. Hence, a case u/s 507 of I.P.C. was also registered by Shri Shrenik Shah in Chandkheda Police Station bearing C.R. No.II 3177/11 0n 23.07.11.

• As a part of investigation Shri Sanjiv Bhatt was summoned u/s 160 of Cr.P.C.to remain present before the Investigation Officer. First summons was issued on 12.08.2011 to appear before I.O. on 24.08.2011. 2nd summons was issued on 25.08.2011 for 02.09.2011. Third summons was issued on 02.09.2011 to remain present on 19.09.2011. Fourth summons was issued on 20.09.2011 to remain present on 30.09.2011. He did not remain present on any of the date given to him, stating various reasons. He sent communication in respect of last summons stating that as he has to remain present before the Justice Nanavati & Justice Mehta Commission it is not possible for him to remain present on 30.09.2011. It was inquired in the office of the Justice Nanavati & Justice Mehta Commission of Inquiry and found that he has not been asked by the commission to remain present before the commission on 30.09.2011.

• This case being investigated by the concerned Police Officer where the case has been registered and detained Shri Sanjiv Bhatt as part of investigation on 30-09-2011. Search warrants were issued by the Investigation Officer on 30-09-2011 and on 01-10-2011.

• It is alleged that his house was ransacked during the search which is baseless and false as search was carried out as per law and under videography.

Shri Sanjiv Bhatt filed a petition No.135/2011 in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India praying for transfer of offence registered as C.R.No.I 149 of 2011 which is filed as private offence independently by Shri K.D. Panth.

It is a settled position in law that extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India would be sparingly invoked and normally, a litigant should approach the jurisdictional High Court invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Shri Sanjiv Bhatt has neither approached the Hon’ble High Court invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India nor has he assigned any reasons shown as to why he cannot move the Hon’ble High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Further, there is startling and shocking fact which shows that Shri Sanjiv Bhatt is guilty of suppressing most material facts and making incorrect statement and even submitting fabricated document on oath. The copy of the office order mentioning rewards given to Shri K. D. Panth by Sanjiv Bhatt in his petition is fabricated and words have been inserted deliberately though the actual order is different.

Fabrication of facts by Sanjeev Bhatt