Saying that the dismissed IPS officer, Sanjiv Bhatt, was the “mastermind” in the fake narcotics case of 1996 against a Rajasthan-based lawyer, the CID-Crime on Tuesday filed a detailed affidavit opposing his regular bail at a Palanpur court in Banaskantha district. The lawyer, Sumer Singh Rajpurohit, who was allegedly framed by Bhatt, meanwhile, also filed an application opposing Bhatt’s bail. Bhatt was arrested on September 5 after the Gujarat High Court in June had directed the CID to probe the case in which Rajpurohit, a resident of Pali district in Rajasthan, was booked for keeping 1.15 kg opium at a Palanpur hotel room in 1996. Bhatt was then SP of Banaskantha. The CID-Crime affidavit, signed by Superintendent of Police Virendrasingh Yadav, stated that Bhatt should not be granted bail as many of the witnesses in the case were reportedly “intimidated” by the former IPS officer and are still “fearful” of him. The affidavit, sources said, stated that handwriting experts have proved that the signature in the register of Lajwant Hotel in Palanpur where Rajpurohit allegedly stayed was forged. It also stated that “evidence collected so far indicate that Bhatt is the mastermind of the offence”. The affidavit also claimed that Bhatt’s involvement had been allegedly recorded in a case diary which he had destroyed and a new case diary was prepared. The CID also claimed to have found out the policeman who allegedly procured opium that was handed over to Bhatt and allegedly “planted to frame the lawyer”. The affidavit claimed that the packet of opium delivered to Bhatt and the one found from the hotel room bore similarity. The CID has also refuted the version that then police inspector I B Vyas had raided the hotel on April 30, 1996 and found opium in the presence of panch witnesses. The CID stated that their probe found that “there was no raid as no panch witnesses was present at that time”. The affidavit stated that Bhatt had informed some of the police personnel a day in advance about the information of narcotics consignment. Besides, the CID has claimed that two policemen, working under Bhatt at that time, have said that they had refused to take the “illegal instruction” of Bhatt and didn’t participate in framing Rajpurohit. Sources, however, said that affidavit doesn’t mention the name of the two policemen. The CID also claimed to have found anomalies in the identification parade conducted by Vyas. It has been found that within “five minutes” parade was done, Rajpurohit and three witnesses were interrogated, and their statements were recorded.
