KD Panth’s charges against Sanjiv Bhatt in question

Additional sessions judge VK Vyas on Monday rejected the prosecution's arguments and granted bail to suspended IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt who had spent 17 days in judicial custody.

While granting bail to Bhatt, the judge expressed doubts about the genuineness of the complainant KD Panth's allegations against the IPS officer. The court also rejected the prosecution's arguments regarding Bhatt's alleged 'criminal antecedents.'

The court said that Panth's allegation that he had been detained, threatened and forced to sign a false affidavit without being given the opportunity to read its contents, had raised doubts about the genuineness of the case against Bhatt.

Panth had alleged in his FIR that Bhatt had forced him to prepare an affidavit supporting the IPS officer's claim that he was present at a meeting called by chief minister Narendra Modi at his official residence on February 27, 2002.

However, the court rejected his allegation observing that Panth had studied till the second-year of a BBA degree course in English medium. Further, he was a senior police officer in the state IB in 2002.

Given these facts, it is hard to believe that Panth had signed an affidavit without reading it and only on the instruction of Bhatt who had already been suspended by then, the court said.

The judge also noted that the incident had taken place at midnight on June 16, 2011, but the complaint had been filed on June 22, 2011. Further, the justification given for the delay in filing of the FIR was that the complainant was scared. However, just a day after preparing the 'false' affidavit, he had submitted another affidavit before an executive magistrate in Gandhinagar, the court said.

After considering the records, the court refused to accept the justification given by Panth for the delay in filing of the FIR.
The court also considered the statements of advocate Vijay Kanara and his assistant, Vinod Gamara, in judging the veracity of the case against Bhatt. Gamara had said in their statement that Panth was explained the contents of the affidavit before he signed it.

"It was only after he was explained the details of the contents that he [Panth] signed on each and every page of the affidavit and 11 copies of the statement. Further, he had taken the original copy and other copies and had left only one photocopy with the notary and Bhatt. On the photocopy of the affidavit, he had written 'not for submission'," Gamara had stated.

Earlier, during the hearing of the case, the prosecution had argued that the contents of Panth's affidavit were false as Panth was not present in the city on February 27, 2002, the date on which the meeting at the CM's official residence in Gandhinagar was held.

The prosecution had claimed that Panth had gone for personal work to Mumbai and had even visited the French consulate in the metropolis in February 2002.

But the court, while examining the statement recorded by the police in this regard, observed that the investigating officer had not produced any documentary evidence in support of Panth's visit to the French consulate and his place of residence in Mumbai during the visit.