The Gujarat High Court on Thursday rejected former IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt’s bail plea in connection with a 23-year-old case. Bhatt, who was arrested in September last year, has been accused of framing a lawyer from Rajasthan in a false case by planting drugs at a Palanpur hotel room in Banaskantha in 1996 as part of a “well-planned conspiracy” to get a property vacated in Rajasthan. Bhatt was SP of Banaskantha district then. “Justice S G Gokanki passed an oral order rejecting the regular bail petition of Bhatt. A detailed order is awaited,” said a lawyer associated with the litigation. The lawyer said that Bhatt had moved the petition on the ground that he has already got an anticipatory bail related to the alleged offence registered by Rajasthan Police, and therefore, the second FIR registered in Gujarat in connection with the same incident was not maintainable. The case with a long history and multiple litigations relates to the arrest of lawyer Sumersingh Rajpurohit, who was booked by Banaskantha police under the provisions of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substance (NDPS) Act on April 30, 1996 for allegedly keeping 1.15 kg of opium at a Palanpur hotel room. Later, Banaskantha police had sought th discharge of Rajpurohit from the case. Rajpurohit had, however, claimed that he was framed in the case by Bhatt at the behest of a former sitting judge of Gujarat High Court R R Jain over a rented property - a shop at Vardhaman Market in Pali (Rajasthan)- where he and one more person were tenants. Bhatt was arrested along with then inspector of Banaskantha Crime Branch, I B Vyas, in September last year after the High Court in June directed the CID to probe the case. Bhatt, a 1988-batch IPS officer, was removed from service in 2015. He had several run-ins with BJP government of Gujarat. On October 4 last year, the Supreme Court had dismissed his wife Shweta Bhatt’s plea, challenging the police probe and his judicial custody in the alleged planting of drugs case. The apex court said he could approach an “appropriate forum” for relief. The apex court had held it was not appropriate for it to interfere in the ongoing investigation.
