IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt suffered a setback on Friday, with the Supreme Court declining to interfere with a Gujarat High Court order that rejected his petition, which challenged the government's decision to withdraw a revision plea protecting him from prosecution in an alleged custodial death case.
Mr. Bhatt withdrew his petition after a Bench of Justices B.S. Chauhan and T.S. Thakur made it clear that he could seek remedy in the sessions court and raise all his contentions, including factual errors in the impugned judgment. The Bench dismissed the Special Leave Petition directed against the November 7 order as withdrawn.
When senior counsel Gopal Subramaniam, appearing for Mr. Bhatt, submitted that there were factual inaccuracies in the judgment, Justice Chauhan told him: “It is shocking that for 21 years the alleged custodial death has not been tried.” When counsel said it was not a case of custodial death, Justice Chauhan said that had to be decided during trial. “The protection and rights you are seeking under Article 21 are not only for the accused but also for the victims. You raise all your contentions before the sessions court. Why should we interfere at this stage?”
The case relates to the alleged custodial torture and the subsequent death of a person in1990 in Jamjodhpur in Jamnagar district. In the magistrate's court, the government opposed the prosecution of Mr. Bhatt who was the then Assistant Superintendent of police (ASP) in Jamnagar. When the magistrate turned down the government's plea, the State government filed a revision petition in 1996 before the local district court, again opposing the IPS officer's prosecution. This case had had been pending in the court since then.
However, when the case came up for trial in the district court this year, the government withdrew the application. Mr. Bhatt challenged the government's decision in the High Court, which on November 7 upheld the decision.
Justice Thakur told counsel, “It is a simple case of withdrawal of revision petition. You have an independent remedy. You can pursue that remedy. If there are factual inaccuracies, it can be brought to the notice of the court. We can't make observations which will have the effect of nullifying the judgment. In your own interest, you can withdraw this petition and pursue your remedy in the sessions court.”
Senior counsel Aryama Sundaram, appearing for the complainant, opposed the petition, saying Mr. Bhatt had filed a revision petition and no relief could be granted by this court.
