Why court granted bail to Sanjiv Bhatt

Ahmedabad,17 October,2011

Before reading this article, please read this piece from our archive to get to know what was Panth’s complaint against Sajiv Bhatt.

Ahmedabad sessions court (rural) judge V.K.Vyas today mentioned some interesting observations in his verdict to grant bail to suspended IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt.

-Investigation on section 194 and 195 about fabricated affidavit is completed.

-When Panth was at Bhatt’s place, Bhatt asked Panth to bring his friend inside. The friend was waiting outside Bhatt’s bungalow in a car. Panth went outside to being his friend inside. Panth could escape from Bhatt’s house at that time. Similarly when Bhatt went to change dress, panth could leave the place. Panth could escape after meeting Arjun Modhwadia too from outside of Modhwadia’s house.

-Panth had left Kanara’s office for a while for smoking and he was allowed to do so.

-Judge said it was clearly not believable that Panth was kept in confinement using force, or some person was continuously with him every time during visit to Bhatt, Modhwadia and Kanara’s places to keep him in confinement.

-Judge also observed that Panth was a cop who worked in intelligence department under Bhatt and it is not believable that he could sign affidavit without reading it or without knowing its content.

-Judge also observed that Panth wrote a note on affidavit and was allowed to keep copies.

-Panth had told that the said incident happened between 16 June and 17 June, but he submitted a complaint on ths on 22 June. This is five to six days delay and Panth gives only reason that he didn’t come to file complaint immediately because he was under fear.

-Non bailable sections 194 and 195 were not considered valid in this case by judge.

-Judge Vyas found reference of other cases against Bhatt and his criminal record irreverent to this case.

-Court observed that Prima facie there was no evidence on record to draw the conclusion that Modhwadia was involved in it and mere call records of the duration of conversation between Modhwadia and advocate Kanara, in whose office the affidavit was reportedly prepared, were not enough to link former with the case.