SC rejects Sanjiv Bhatt's plea for bail in custodial death case
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected ex-IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt's plea seeking release on bail and suspension of sentence in a 1990 custodial death case.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was dealing with an appeal filed by Bhatt against the Gujarat High Court's judgment upholding the trial court's order of conviction and sentence of life imprisonment.
It clarified that the dismissal of the instant plea for bail would not affect the hearing of the appeal on merits and directed expeditious hearing of the matter.
Earlier, the Gujarat High Court had dismissed Bhatt's appeal against the conviction and sentence.
'We are of the view that the trial court has not committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and therefore, no interference is required in the present appeals. We are of the view that prosecution has proved the case against the respective accused/convicts and hence, no interference is required in the impugned judgment and order passed by the Ld. Trial Court,' a bench of Justices Ashutosh Shastri and Sandeep N. Bhatt had ruled.
'We, also on our independent look, perusal and scrutiny of evidence, found that the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial judge in passing an order, impugned in this proceeding, is in consonance with material on record and in accordance with law and there is no element of perversity of any nature.'
In 2019, the Jamnagar Sessions Judge had convicted Bhatt for the offences punishable under sections 302, 323, 506 (1) read with sections 34 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Dismissed from service in 2015, Bhatt has been incarcerated since 2018.
In March 2024, the Palanpur sessions court in Banaskantha district sentenced Bhatt to 20 years in jail for his involvement in a 1996 narcotics case. The trial court found Bhatt guilty of planting drugs to falsely implicate a Rajasthan-based lawyer in Palanpur, where Bhatt was serving as the Superintendent of Police at the time. Bhatt had arrested lawyer Sumersingh Rajpurohit under the NDPS Act, claiming that opium was found in his hotel room.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Northeast Delhi riots: After judge's transfer, where does the ‘larger conspiracy' case stand?
Arguments on charge in the Delhi riots 'larger conspiracy' case will have to begin afresh as the judge who had been hearing the case for the last 18 months has been transferred. Out of the 18 accused arrested in the case, 12 have been in jail for over four years. From October to May 2025, five accused — including former JNU student leader Umar Khalid, former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain, Shifa Ur Rehman, and Safoora Zargar — had completed their arguments on charge. The prosecution also completed its arguments during day-to-day hearings. After the remaining persons finished their arguments, the trial of the case would've begun. Family members and lawyers of the accused called the delay a 'punishment'. Shortly after the riots broke out, which left 53 dead and 700 injured, the Delhi Police Special Cell started investigating the alleged conspiracy behind them. During its investigation, it booked the 18 accused under relevant provisions of the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and IPC. The case of the Special Cell was that the riots were the result of a months-long 'deep-rooted' conspiracy allegedly hatched after the Citizenship Amendment Bill got a nod from the Cabinet in December 2019. Between 2020 and 2023, police filed four supplementary chargesheets. With their final chargesheet in June 2023, they marked the completion of their probe into the case. Their case was primarily built on CCTV footage, WhatsApp chats, and statements of protected witnesses. In October 2023, Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Amitabh Rawat of Karkardooma Court had directed that arguments on the charge be conducted on a day-to-day basis. Two months later, ASJ Rawat was transferred and ASJ Sameer Bajpai replaced him. On September 4 last year, the Special Cell officially told ASJ Bajpai that they had completed their investigation. Following this, the judge ordered that arguments on charge would commence from September 5. On May 30 this year, ASJ Bajpai was transferred following a reshuffle of 135 judges across Delhi. 'With the chargesheet of several thousand pages, more than 700 witnesses, other issues and such transfers, we don't know how long it will take. This is very unfortunate. Our sons and daughters are languishing in jail,' said Umar's father, Syed Qasim Rasool Ilyas. 'The problem is that section 43(D) of the UAPA lists extremely stringent bail conditions. The judge has to first make up their mind whether a prima facie case is made out or not. For this, arguments on charge need to be complete. It becomes impossible to get bail otherwise,' said advocate Rajiv Mohan, who represented Husain in court. Along with Mohan, advocate Tara Narula also appeared for Husain. Asif Iqbal Tanha, one of the six accused out on bail, told The Indian Express, 'For the people who are in jail, the delay in trial is very problematic. But even those who are out on bail have various restrictions.' On June 2, ASJ Lalit Kumar, who replaced ASJ Bajpai, heard the case for the first time. The Delhi Police and the accused persons were directed by the judge to furnish their schedule regarding the time frame and manner in which they will address arguments. The court also stated that arguments on charge must be 'expedited'. On June 6, ASJ Kumar asked the prosecution and the defence how long they would take to conclude the arguments. 'I will take 25-27 hours to outline the entire conspiracy… we have submitted a 1,200-page compilation. For the assistance of the honorable Court, I will keep it very concise,' Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad had said. The 18 accused persons in this case are Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, Ishrat Jahan, Faizan Khan, Safoora Zargar, Asif Iqbal Tanha (all six on bail); Tahir Husain, Umar Khalid, Khalid Saifi, Sharjeel Imam, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa-Ur-Rehman, Shadab Ahmed, Tasleem Ahmed, Saleem Malik, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Athar Khan (all 12 in jail).
India Today
2 hours ago
- India Today
Caught on camera: Restaurant vandalised over delay in food service in Ghaziabad
Panic broke out late Saturday night at a restaurant in Ghaziabad when a group of armed men stormed in and vandalised the premises, causing chaos amongst diners, including women and children. The incident occurred in the Rajnagar Extension area at a restaurant called Apni Rasoi around 11:30 to the FIR filed by the restaurant owner, Akshit Tyagi, the ruckus began over a delay in food service. Initially, there was a heated exchange of abuses. A few hours later, around 6–7 individuals arrived on motorcycles and a WagonR taxi and attacked the restaurant wielding sticks, rods and the violent attack, the men allegedly damaged two laptops, an LED screen, and a billing machine. They also reportedly took Rs 1,760 from the billing counter. At the time of the incident, several families, including women and children, were dining at the restaurant. Frightened by the sudden violence, they fled the scene to save their lives. WATCH: The entire episode was captured on the restaurant's CCTV cameras, which police are now examining to identify the culprits. Tyagi also alleged in his complaint that some of the accused had previously visited the restaurant on June 6, drunk and involved in a brawl, but the matter was settled that of three accused have come to light - Mintu Tyagi, Rajdeep, and Ravi Sharma. Based on the complaint, an FIR has been registered under IPC sections 352 (assault or use of criminal force), 115(2), 324(4), 351(3), and 309(6).Police are now scrutinising the CCTV footage to identify and arrest the accused. Further investigation is Watch
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Lesson from stampedes: Communication key to crowd control, say experts
This year, stampedes at a major railway station in Delhi, at the Maha Kumbh in Uttar Pradesh, and during a cricket match victory celebration in Karnataka have led to at least 72 deaths and a few hundred injuries so far — a grim statistic which exposes the glaring gaps in crowd regulation rules, official apathy and tokenistic governance. Action taken following these tragic, largely preventable deaths does little to avert such incidents in the future — after the June 4 stampede in Bengaluru, the state leadership, replicating the action of its counterparts in other parts of the country, suspending the city's top cop and other police staff, and ordered a magisterial inquiry. Later, the Karnataka high court also took suo motu notice. In light of these developments, HT spoke with veteran police officers, planners, urban designers, and academics to dissect the anatomy of stampedes and how to prevent them. Prakash Singh, a retired IPS officer who was the state police chief of Assam and Uttar Pradesh and the director-general of the Border Security Force, said the Bengaluru tragedy appears to be a case of overriding political desire overruling reservations from the police. Multiple reports, including by HT, suggest that the police had initially dismissed the idea of a parade due to paucity of time. But as some players from the overseas were scheduled to return home, there was a rush to hold the celebrations on June 4 itself, according to people aware of the matter. 'But this should have never been made part of the consideration. No event can be organised without the clearance from the police,' Singh said. The second issue, he pointed out, was the inconsistent messaging. 'There were multiple versions of when and where the parade will be held.' The most significant lapse, however, was the police's alleged failure to react when the crowd started trickling, Singh said. 'Around 200,000-300,000 people tried to make their way towards the stadium when the capacity was only 36,000. It was a policing failure, given that there are enough surveillance measures that would have indicated swelling of crowds.' Police should have, through existing intelligence and surveillance measures, prevented the crowd from converge from all directions. Another lapse was the inadequate deployment of forces, he added. 'Ideally, civic volunteers, armed battalions, and the fire brigade should have been mobilised. If there was fatigue, police from outside the commissionerate should have been engaged, he said. While Karnataka home minister G Parameshwara has announced that the government will formulate a new SOP for crowd control, these mechanisms are not alien to India, where heavy footfall events such as the Maha Kumbh are held regularly. They have been part of the police manual since colonial times, and even the National Disaster Management Agency (NDMA) has issued guidelines to manage crowds at events. To prevent stampedes, the administration — be it government, private organisers or temple trusts— should actively control the 'hype' through constant messaging, said Monika Vij, a geography professor at Delhi's Miranda House, who has researched extensively on crowd management at religious events. Referring to the Kumbh tragedy in January, where the official death toll was 30, she said, while the authorities made 'excellent arrangements', the hype of a historical event overshadowed everything. Authorities could not effectively communicate with the crowd when the stampede took place, she said. 'There has to be greater control and responsibility over disseminating information.' On the Bengaluru stampede, she said it was the 'lack of clarity over the venue and ticketing' which led to the tragedy. Similar confusion was seen at the February 15 stampede at the New Delhi Railway Station over train departures, Vij said. Another retired IPS officer Nazrul Islam, who was the ADGP in West Bengal, said a crowd, by default, is fuelled by frenzy and not rationality — be it a religious procession or a sports event. 'Visible, prompt policing is important to keep the crowd disciplined. Staggered movement of crowds is essential, and for that, checkpoints are installed in all directions from approaches to the event venue,' he said. KT Ravindran, founder of the Institute of Urban Designers India, said, for any kind of gathering, authorities must ensure that designing standards, such as entry and exit points and emergency exit, are followed. 'At any point in time, the potential to disperse should be higher than the potential to gather.' Ujan Ghosh, the former president of the institute, said the combined action of authorities, including police, along with the architecture, either prevents or causes a stampede. He also questioned if the Bengaluru stadium was the right choice as the venue for the cricket felicitation event. Spaces, such as streets and pavements, are often designed for specific purposes, he said, suggesting that stadiums are usually for ticketed events.
