1990 custodial death case: SC dismisses ex-IPS officer's bail plea
The Supreme Court on Tuesday denied bail to sacked IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt and also declined to suspend his sentence in connection with a 1990 custodial death case in Gujarat . The bench however directed that the appeal filed by him challenging his conviction and sentence, which is pending in the top court, be expedited.
Dismissing his petition to suspend the sentence and grant bail, a bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said, 'We are not inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail.'
Justice Mehta, who wrote the judgment for the bench, said, 'The observations made herein are restricted to bail and will not impact the appeals of the appellant. The prayers sought for bail is dismissed and the hearing on the appeal is expedited.'
Bhatt had moved the application in his pending appeal on which orders were reserved in February this year.
The former IPS officer had claimed that he has remained incarcerated since his arrest in September 2018 without getting bail or parole for a single day. It was his case that the court failed to consider material contradictions in the prosecution case against him and claimed an acquittal. The Gujarat high court had dismissed his appeal in January last year.
The bench had issued notice on Bhatt's appeal in August last year and had posted it for hearing along with appeals filed by two co-accused Shaileshkumar Pandya and Pravinsingh Jadeja, who were granted protection from surrendering in March this year.
Prior to the high court judgment, a Jamnagar court had convicted Bhatt along with others for offences of murder under section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life term in prison.
The custody death case against Bhatt dates to 1990 when he was Jamnagar district's newly appointed additional superintendent of police.
Back then in Bihar, a person who was detained for his alleged involvement in a violence-related incident, had died in a hospital after his release. His brother alleged that he was physically assaulted in jail leading to his death.
Bhatt, a 1988 batch IPS officer of Gujarat cadre, was sacked in 2015 for 'unauthorised absence' from service.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
3 hours ago
- India Today
Forced narco tests illegal, results not admissible: Supreme Court
Setting aside a high court order allowing narco-analysis tests on accused persons without consent, the Supreme Court on Wednesday asserted that involuntary or forced tests are not permissible under the law. The Supreme Court held that compelling an accused to undergo narco-analysis, without free and informed consent, violates the constitutional protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) and the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the report of such an involuntary test or any information discovered as a result is not admissible as evidence in criminal or other proceedings," the bench clarified. The order came days after a Patna High Court order accepting a police officer's submission to subject all accused persons and witnesses in a criminal case to narco-analysis testing. The submission of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer was accepted during the hearing of a bail plea filed by the its ruling, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its landmark 2010 judgment in Selvi and Others v State of Karnataka, which held that forcibly subjecting individuals to narco-analysis, polygraph, or brain mapping tests was unconstitutional. The court reiterated that these techniques, if not voluntarily undertaken, breach personal liberty and the right against safeguards laid down in the Selvi case judgement:No lie detector or narco-analysis test shall be conducted without the accused's voluntary accused must be informed of the legal, emotional, and physical implications of the to legal counsel must be provided before deciding on consentConsent must be recorded before a Judicial guidelines for polygraph tests should be followed, and similar protocols adopted for narco-analysis and brain mapping top court further clarified that an accused may voluntarily choose to do so at an appropriate stage, such as during the presentation of defence evidence in a even in such cases, the court emphasised that there is no indefeasible right to undergo narco-analysis. It also said that judicial authorisation must account for the totality of circumstances, including safeguards and genuine InMust Watch
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Khanna police arrest two in fake documents scam.
Ludhiana: The Khanna police have arrested two accused involved in fake documents scam. The accused have been identified as Surjit Singh of Durgapur village in Nabha of Patiala, now in Azad Nagar, Khanna, and Mahima Singh of Khandoli village in Patiala district. According to the police, recoveries from the accused included nine forged Aadhar cards, one forged official stamp of naib tehsildar Bhado, a fake stamp of BDPO, one fake property valuation certificate, and one forged land deed. The SSP Khanna, Dr Jyoti Yadav, stated that on Tuesday, during patrolling near the main gate of police station city Khanna, police received a tip off that a group of individuals, including Surjit Singh, Mahima Singh, Harvinder Singh of Moga, Shamsher Khan, Rajvir Singh, and Harmit Singh (all residents of Bhado), were engaged in preparing and using forged documents to register land transactions fraudulently in various tehsils. She added that it was also revealed that Surjit Singh fabricated an official stamp of the naib tehsildar of Bhado. Police said acting swiftly on the information received, they apprehended Surjit Singh, who had come to Khanna Tehsil to "carry out" a fake registry. They added that a case was registered under the relevant sections of the IPC at police station city, Khanna, and a preliminary investigation was initiated. Meanwhile, the SSP Khanna suggested that during preliminary questioning of accused Surjit, he revealed that in a minimum of 20-22 cases, such fake documents were used to fill bail bonds for bail. The police said that efforts were ongoing to nab the other accused in the case.
New Indian Express
3 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Calling a rapist 'family' is not just
The Supreme Court recently used its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to uphold the conviction of a 25-year-old man for raping a 14-year-old girl without imposing a sentence. Some hailed the decision as a 'landmark', but it has raised serious concerns about the message it sends on child protection and justice. In 2018, a child was kidnapped in West Bengal. Later, she was found married to the man who had raped her and gave birth to his child. The court acknowledged that a crime had taken place and upheld his conviction under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, but reasoned that sending him to jail would make the victim the 'worst sufferer' because she had now built a life with the accused. The bench of Justices A S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan made the decision based on the report of a committee consisting of a clinical psychologist, a social scientist and a child welfare officer, which found that the woman, now 21, is emotionally attached to the accused and protective of her 'small family'. Has the court interpreted her trauma-based dependence as 'consent' and survival as 'choice'? In another recent case, the Orissa High Court adopted a similar approach. Justice S K Panigrahi granted bail to a 26-year-old man accused of raping a girl he had allegedly been in a relationship with since 2019, when she was 16. The complainant said the accused had physical relations with her on the false promise of marriage and that she became pregnant twice, in 2020 and 2022, but was forced to terminate both pregnancies. A case under the POCSO Act was filed in 2023. In 2024, the accused sought bail, claiming both families had agreed he should marry the complainant. The judge, while granting bail, remarked that the allegations, though serious in statutory terms, arose out of a 'consensual relationship' between two individuals who were close in age and shared a personal bond before the case was filed and did not prima facie exhibit characteristics of force, coercion or exploitation.
