Sanjiv Bhatt’s crimes covered up by the media- exposed here

Disgraced former IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt has been sentenced to life imprisonment in a custodial death case of 1989 by a Jamnagar court.

This led to more lies being spread by the self-proclaimed ‘liberals’, and media outlets like BBC, who tried to imply that the reason for his conviction was the anti-Modi stance taken by him, and not this 1989 case. This included Manu Joseph, a former contributor at Outlook weekly, who had initially made the same false charge which was later made by Sanjiv Bhatt, on Narendra Modi giving ‘orders to the police to allow Hindus to riot the next day’ in a crucial meeting on 27 Feb 2002 held at CM’s Bungalow, Gandhinagar in weekly Outlook dated 3 June 2002. Manu Joseph said: “I also believe that he is in jail right now only because he tried to destroy Modi.”

[Manu Joseph’s report of Outlook 3 June 2002 was as false as Sanjiv Bhatt’s claims, and he too can be prosecuted for it. To know the full truth of it, and the lies of Joseph in Outlook, click here.] Of course, in reality, Sanjiv Bhatt is in jail for what he did. He deserves to be in jail for far more crimes committed by him as well, primarily perjury. There is a truckload of evidence of Sanjiv Bhatt’s crimes, which has been covered-up totally by the media.

Let us see what the SIT says about the claims of Sanjiv Bhatt and the reality. It is well-known that Sanjiv Bhatt claimed to be presented in the crucial 27 February 2002 late night meeting in Gandhinagar at 10:30 PM. He had also claimed to be present at Narendra Modi’s second meeting at his residence (i.e. in Gandhinagar, away from Ahmedabad) on the morning of 28 February 2002 at 10:30 AM, as mentioned by the SIT in its report on pages 30-31 as well as 400.

The SIT said [on pages 44-45 as well 400 of its closure report] that his call records showed that Sanjiv Bhat was in Ahmedabad, more than 25 km away from Gandhinagar at 10:57 AM on 28 February. He thus, could not have have attended the meeting of 10:30 AM at Gandhinagar on 28 Feb by any stretch of imagination. Such crucial facts have been totally covered up by the media and the liberals who have no answer for these lies of Sanjiv Bhatt, nailed by his own call records.

The SIT interviewed all the people who were indeed present at that 27 February late night meeting, namely S.K. Varma, the then acting Chief Secretary, Ashok Narayan, the then ACS (Home), P.K. Mishra, the then Principal Secretary to CM (Narendra Modi), K Chakravarthi, the then DGP, P.C. Pandey, the then Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City, Anil Mukim, the then Additional PS to CM, K Nityanandam, the then Secretary (Home) and Prakash Shah, the then Additional Secretary (law and order).

On pages 393 to 397 of the closure report, their statements are given. S K Varma stated that she could not remember if Sanjiv Bhatt was present or not, but dismissed his allegation that Modi said anything about balancing action against Hindus or Muslims, or that Muslims be taught a lesson or Hindus be allowed to vent their anger. ALL other participants denied the presence of Sanjiv Bhatt, and also any Minister, and categorically denied the claim that Modi made any statement of the type alleged by Sanjiv Bhatt.

Sanjiv Bhatt also claimed that the then Ministers the late Ashok Bhat and I K Jadeja were present at this meeting of 10:30 AM at Gandhinagar on 28 Feb. The SIT report says on pages 44 and 45:

“The call detail records of the government mobile phone number allotted to Sanjiv Bhat show that on 27 February 2002, Shri Sanjiv Bhat remained at Ahmedabad till 11:20 hours and returned to Ahmedabad at 19:25 hours. He attended to various calls till 20:40, and thereafter, there is no record of any call made or received by him. Further, on 28 February 2002, he remained at Ahmedabad till 10:57 hours and then returned to Ahmedabad at 20:56 hours.  The claim of Sanjiv Bhat that he had attended a meeting at CM’s residence on 28-02-2002 at 1030 hours is proved to be false and incorrect. CM’s residence is at Gandhinagar, more than 25 KMs from Ahmedabad, and normally takes 30 to 45 minutes to reach there. His further claim that he had seen the late Ashok Bhat and Shri I K Jadeja, the then Ministers in the DGPs office at 11:00 hours on 28-02-2002, is also belied from the call detail records in as much as the location of the mobile phone of Shri Sanjiv Bhat was at Prerna Tower, Vastrapur-I, Ahmedabad, which happened to be at a distance of 1.5 Kms appropriately from his residence and Shri Bhat could not have reached Police Bhavan, Gandhinagar before 11:30 hrs by any stretch of imagination (page 44)…

(Page 45)  The claim of Sanjiv Bhat that he attended the said meeting at 1030 hours at CM’s location is proved to be false from the location of his mobile phone, which was at Prerna Tower, Vastrapur-I, Ahmedabad City at 10:57: 43 hrs.”

This shows that Sanjiv Bhat also wrongly claimed to have been present at the DGP’s office in Gandhinagar at 11:00 am on 28 Feb 2002, and seen two Ministers the late Ashok Bhatt and I K Jadeja there. We can also see that on 27 February 2002, his call location is not Gandhinagar from 8:40 PM. He reached Ahmedabad at 7:25 PM and his last call record is 8:40 PM at Ahmedabad with not the slightest indication of Gandhinagar. If he attended the 27 February meeting held at 10:30-10:45 PM at Gandhinagar, at least at some time his mobile location would have been shown to be Gandhinagar, post 8:40 PM. Instead the mobile location is shown to be Ahmedabad at 10:57 AM the next day.

The SIT report says on pages 423-428:

“Government of Gujarat vide its letter dated 22-6-2011 forwarded a set of emails exchanged between Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, DIG, Gujarat Police and certain individuals during April & May 2011. It was mentioned in the above letter that during the course of an inquiry instituted against Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, IPS by DG (Civil Defence), Gujarat regarding misuse of official resources, some revelations have been made having direct bearing on the cases monitored by SIT. The material forwarded by Govt. of Gujarat has been scrutinized and the salient features of the same are summarized as below:

  • That top Congress leaders of Gujarat namely Shri Shaktisinh Gohil, Leader of Opposition in Gujarat Legislative Assembly and Shri Arjun Modhvadhia, President of the Gujarat Pradesh Congress Committee are in constant touch with Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, DIG. They are providing him “Packages”, certain materials and also legal assistance. Further, on 28-04-2011, Shri Sanjiv Bhatt exchanged mails with Shri Shaktisinh Gohil and the former gave points for arguments in Hon’ble Supreme Court matter, allegations to be made against the members of SIT and to establish that the burning of a coach of Sabarmati Express at Godhra Railway Station was not a conspiracy. From the emails, it appears that Shri Sanjiv Bhatt was holding personal meetings with senior Congress leaders as well. In one of the emails, he even mentions that he was “under exploited” by the lawyer representing Congress before Nanavati Commission of Inquiry.
  • That Shri Sanjiv Bhatt had been persuading various NGOs and other interested groups to influence groups to influence the Ld. Amicus Curiae and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by using “Media Card” and “Pressure Groups”.
  • Shri Sanjiv Bhatt had been exchanging emails with one Nasir Chippa and in the email dated 11-05-2011 Shri Bhatt has stated that he (Nasir Chippa) should try to mobilize support/pressure-groups in Delhi to influence Ld. Amicus Curiae Raju Ramchandran in a very subtle manner. In another email dated 18-05-2011, Shri Sanjiv Bhatt had requested Shri Nasir Chippa to influence Home Minister Shri P. Chidambaram through pressure groups in US. It is believed that Shri Nasir Chippa has strong US connections and his family stays there.
  • That Shri Sanjiv Bhatt arranged an appeal from Shri M Hasan Jowher, who runs a so-called NGO titled SPRAT (Society for Promoting Rationality) to Amicus Curiae on 13-05-2011, to call Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, IPS, Shri Rajnish Rai, IPS, Shri Satish Verma, IPS, Shri Kuldeep Sharma, IPS and Shri Rahul Sharma, IPS (all police officers of Gujarat) to tender their version of the Gujarat story. It may be mentioned here that the draft for the said appeal was sent by Shri Sanjiv Bhatt himself to Shri Jowher. Further, a copy of this mail was circulated by Shri Sanjiv Bhatt to Shabnam Hashmi, Ms. Teesta Setalwad, Shri Himanshu Thakker, journalist, Shri Leo Saldana, Journalist and Shri Nasir Chippa to encourage prominent persons/organisation to write to Amicus Curiae on the similar lines so as to pressurize him.
  • In emails exchanged on June 1, 2011 between Shri Sanjiv Bhatt and Shri M.H. Jowher, it was proposed that a PIL may be filed through a lawyer named Shri K Vakharia (a Sr. Advocate and Chairman of Legal Cell of Congress Party in Gujarat) in the Gujarat High Court for providing security to Shri Sanjiv Bhatt. It was also proposed that another complaint may be filed with the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City against Shri Narendra Modi & others for his alleged involvement in 2002 riots which would be taken to appropriate judicial forums in due course.
  • That Ms. Teesta Setalwad, her lawyer Shri Mihir Desai and Journalist Shri Manoj Mitta of Times of India were in constant touch with Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, IPS and were instrumental in arranging/drafting of the affidavit for filing the same in the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Vide email dated 10-04-2011, Shri Bhatt solicited “Co-ordinates” from Ms. Teesta Setalwad, who had also arranged for a meeting with her lawyer Shri Mihir Desai at Ellisbridge Gymkhana, Ahmedabad. Shri Sanjiv Bhatt sent the first draft of his proposed affidavit to Shri Manoj Mitta on 13-04-2011, after meeting Shri Mihir Desai, Advocate and invited his suggestions. Shri Manoj Mitta advised Shri Sanjiv Bhatt to incorporate a few more paragraphs drafted by him which were incorporated by Shri Sanjiv Bhatt in his final affidavit sent to Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as suggested by Mitta.
  • That Shri Sanjiv Bhatt was instrumental in arranging an affidavit of one Shri Shubhranshu Chaudhary, a journalist, to corroborate his claim that he had gone to attend a meeting called by the Chief Minister at his residence in the night of 27-02-2002. Significantly, Shri Bhatt had sent his mobile phone details of 27-02-2002 to Shri Shubhranshu Chaudhary and he had also suggested the probable timings of his meeting to Shri Shubhranshu Chaudhary on 15-05-2011. Simultaneously, these details were sent to Ms. Teesta Setalwad on 16-05-2011, for drafting the document, presumably the affidavit to be filed by Shri Shubhranshu Chaudhary. Shri Sanjiv Bhatt sent an email to Shri Shubhranshu Chaudhary that the said affidavit could be leaked out to the print media which would force the Amicus Curiae and Hon’ble Supreme Court to take notice of the same. Shri Sanjiv Bhatt also sent another email to Shri Shubhranshu Chaudhary, in which he has stated that they should play the “Media Trick” so that affidavit is taken seriously by Amicus Curiae and the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
  • That Shri Sanjiv Bhat had been exchanging emails with one Leo Saldana, a Narmada Bachao Andolan activist, with a view to mobilize public opinion in their favour. On 01-05-2011, Shri Sanjiv Bhatt had sent an email to the latter to the effect that what they needed to do at this stage was to create a situation where it would be difficult for three judges Supreme Court Bench to disregard the shortcomings of SIT under stewardship of Mr. Raghavan and that the Pressure groups and opinion makers in Delhi could be of great help in forwarding the cause. He has further stated in the mail that he was hopeful that things would start turning around from the next hearing, if proper pressure was maintained at National level.
  • That Shri Sanjiv Bhatt was trying to contact Shri K.S. Subramanyam, a retired IPS officer, through Shri Nasir Chippa to make an affidavit supporting his stand with a view to convince the Amicus Curiae and through him the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that Shri K. Chakravarthi, former DGP of Gujarat, was a liar.
  • That Shri Sanjiv Bhatt had been taking advice of Ms. Teesta Setalwad in connection with his evidence before Nanavati Commission of Inquiry. He had also been in touch with various journalists, NGOs and had been forwarding his representations, applications and other documents through email, whereas on the other side he had been claiming privilege that being an Intelligence Officer he was duty bound not to disclose anything unless, he was legally compelled to do so.
  • That Shri Sanjiv Bhatt has been maintaining a close contact with Shri Rahul Sharma, DIG of Gujarat Police and had been getting his mobile phone calls analyzed with a view to ascertain his own movements of 27-02-2002. This shows that Bhatt does not recollect his movements on that day. He has also been trying to ascertain the movements of Late Haren Pandya, the then Minister of State for Revenue on 27-02-2002, with a view to introduce him as a participant of the meeting of 27-02-2002 held at CM’s residence, but could not do so, as Shri Rahul Sharma had informed him after the analysis that there was absolutely no question of Late Haren Pandya being at Gandhinagar on 27-02-2002 night.

From the study of emails, it appears that certain vested interests including Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, different NGOs and some political leaders were trying to use Hon’ble Supreme Court/SIT as a forum for settling their scores. This would also go to show that Shri Sanjiv Bhatt had been colluding with the persons with vested interests to see that some kind of charge-sheet is filed against Shri Narendra Modi and others.”

This makes things absolutely clear and also shows that many people were involved in this fraud, who knew that Sanjiv Bhatt was not present at the 27 February 2002 meeting, but far from bringing out the truth to the investigators, were helping in this false claim.

In October 2015, the SC said exactly these things about Sanjiv Bhat. It said:

Dismissed Gujarat IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt hobnobbed with leaders of a “rival political party” and NGOs, approached the court with “unclean hands” and made “false and baseless” claims in his petition that the two criminal cases against him were an attempt by the Gujarat Government to silence him for speaking out against the role of top functionaries of the State in the 2002 riots, the Supreme Court said on Tuesday rejecting Bhatt’s petition seeking an SIT probe into the two cases against him.

The Bench of Chief Justice Hl Dattu and Justice Arun Mishra discovered that besides the senior leaders of Gujarat’s “rival political party” (read Congress) Bhatt also took instructions from NGO activists and their lawyers, and used the media to create pressure on judges and amicus curiae associated with the monitoring of the Gujarat riots cases in the SC.”

Haren Pandya (murdered in March 2003) of course, was not present in that meeting. The SIT report also says on page 56 that Haren Pandya’s mobile records show that he was in Ahmedabad on 27 Feb 2002 at 22:52 hours, meaning that it was impossible for him to attend the meeting in Gandhinagar at 10:30 PM on 27 Feb. As we can see in Myth 19, he could not even name correctly the people present in the meeting.

This shows that Sanjiv Bhatt was not present at all in the meeting, and he did not even know basic facts about the meeting which even I knew as a 14-year old in 2002 living outside Gujarat. It is known since August 2002 (when Haren Pandya’s errors in naming people present in the meeting were admitted by him to Outlook) that Haren Pandya was by no means present in the meeting. But Sanjiv Bhatt did not even know this and hence first asked Rahul Sharma to find out if Haren Pandya could be introduced as a witness-a participant in that meeting.

Most importantly, this shows that Sanjiv Bhatt was not present at all. If Sanjiv Bhatt was present in the meeting, wouldn’t he know if Haren Pandya was present or not? Why would he need to ask Rahul Sharma to find the call details? This also shows that Rahul Sharma also knew the truth, that Sanjiv Bhatt was not present, but did not tell the investigators and instead helped Sanjiv Bhatt in the fraud.

Sanjiv Bhatt claimed to have been present in that 27 February 2002 meeting for the first time after 9 years. When asked by the SIT about the delay, he claimed that being an Intelligence Officer, he was dutybound by Oath of Secrecy not to disclose anything to anyone unless there was a legal obligation. The SIT report continues on pages 407-408:

“In this connection (his excuse for the delay in claiming to be present in that 27 Feb 2002 meeting, he made this claim after 9 years in 2011 first), it would not be out of place to mention here that assuming for the time being that Shri Sanjiv Bhatt attended the alleged meeting of 27.02.2002, the same was essentially a law & order meeting attended by the various officials of State Administration and therefore the question of oath of secrecy or application of the Official Secrets Act does not arise because it was neither a secret meeting nor would the revelation of the contents of the said meeting jeopardize the public interest. Shri Sanjiv Bhatt has used the weapon of the Official Secrets Act only as a pretext with a view to justify a long delay of nine years and just because an official of the intelligence unit attended a law & order meeting, the same does not become a secret meeting for which a privilege of secrecy is being claimed by Shri Sanjiv Bhatt. In any case, Nanavati Commission and SIT have been set up under the provisions of law of the land and all the citizens/ officials are legally bound to divulge the information available with them which are relevant to the terms of reference/ crimes of the Commission being investigated by SIT.

In view of this, the explanation put forward by Shri Sanjiv Bhatt does not hold good.”

On page 419, the SIT has completely debunked the claim of “Office of Secrecy”. The report says:

“However, on 21/22-03-2011, when he made a statement u/s 161 Cr.PC before the SIT, it is not understood as to by whom and how the claimed secrecy was waived. His silence for a period of more than nine years without any proper explanation appears to be suspicious and gives an impression that he is trying to manipulate the things to his personal advantage to settle his service matters.”

   The SIT said on page 403 that Bhatt was indeed under legal obligations to disclose these facts, if true firstly to Shri R.B. Sreekumar, the then Addl. DG (Int.), who had asked him to provide any oral and documentary relevant fact to be included in his affidavit relating to riots incidents on behalf of State IB required to be filed before Nanavati Commission, secondly to the Nanavati Commission, a legally constituted body under Commission of Inquiry Act which had issued a public notice calling upon any one having knowledge about the incident of issues involved before it, to file an affidavit and furnish information, thirdly, to the SIT, legally constituted by the Supreme Court of India which had also issued a public notice on 11.04.2008 calling upon the people to come forward and give information relating to the riots, but Sanjiv Bhatt conveniently did not come forward. Fourthly, another opportunity was given to him in November 2009, to make a statement during the course of inquiry ordered by the Supreme Court of India.

Meaning that the SIT has said that there was nothing secret about the 27 Feb meeting that prevented Sanjiv Bhatt from disclosing about it to anyone for 9 years, and he could have easily done that. Secondly, the SIT also said that he was indeed under legal obligation to disclose them on at least 4 occasions but did not do so. And thirdly, he came up and made the claims to the SIT in March 2011, more than 9 years after the incident, all on his own, and without any summons, then by whom and how was the secrecy waived?

    The SIT report continues on pages 412-414:

“Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, the then DCI (Security) has named two AIOs namely Shri K.D. Panth and Shri Shailesh Raval, who used to accompany him in such meetings along with the files. After Shri Sanjiv Bhatt’s further statement was recorded at his own request on 25-03-2011 (His first was recorded on 22-03-2011), he insisted that Shri K.D. Panth, who was accompanying him and was waiting outside, should also be examined. He stressed that Shri Panth should be examined in his presence. However, Shri Bhatt was informed that Shri K.D. Panth would be called on a date convenient to the IO and examined. Accordingly, Shri Panth was informed on 04-04-2011, to attend SIT office on 05-04-2011, for his examination.

   Shri K.D. Panth in his examination has stated that he was on casual leave on 27-02-2002. Further, he has denied that he followed Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, the then DCI (Security) to CM’s residence on 27-02-2002 night. However, he has stated that Shri Sanjiv Bhatt had called him to his residence on 24-03-2011 night and informed that he was going to make a statement before the SIT that he (K.D. Panth) had gone to attend a meeting at CM’s residence on 27-02-2002 night, and that he (Panth) had been called at State IB office and be ready with the files for the said meeting. Shri Sanjiv Bhatt further informed Shri Panth that he should accompany him to SIT office on 25-03-2011, and make a statement on these lines.

During his examination, Shri Panth further stated that he had contacted  Shri Sanjiv Bhatt over his landline telephone no. 27455*** from mobile no. 814065**** (belonging to one of his friends) after he was called for examination scheduled for 05-04-2011. Shri Sanjiv Bhatt called him at his residence on 04-04-2011 at 2030 hrs. At his residence, Shri Sanjiv Bhatt informed Shri Panth that he has made a statement to the SIT that he (Bhatt) had accompanied DGP Shri K. Chakravarthi in his official car to CM’s office from DGP’s office on 27-02-2002 night and that he (Shri Panth) had followed him in his (Shri Sanjiv Bhatt’s) staff car along with the files. Shri Sanjiv Bhatt asked Shri Panth to make a statement accordingly.

Subsequently, Shri K.D. Panth lodged a complaint against Shri Sanjiv Bhatt with the local police to the effect that Shri Sanjiv Bhatt had influenced, threatened, detained, put severe pressure and compelled him to sign an affidavit containing false/wrong and incorrect facts, in pursuance of which a case no. I CR No. 149/2011 was registered u/s 189, 193, 195, 341, 342 IPC with Ghatlodia police station, Ahmedabad City, Gujarat State. Shri Sanjiv Bhatt has since been arrested in this case and the matter is under investigation. In view of this, no reliance can be placed upon the version of Shri Sanjiv Bhatt.

   This conduct of Shri Sanjiv Bhatt in arranging, prompting and controlling the witness to corroborate his statement is highly suspicious and undesirable. Shri Sanjiv Bhatt also contacted Shri Shailesh Raval on 28-03-2011/29-03-2011, over mobile phone number 982568**** of one Shri N.J. Chauhan, a clerk in CM’s Security and informed him that he would be called by SIT for his examination. Shri Sanjiv Bhatt also asked Shri Shailesh Raval [to say] that he had worked with him in Security Branch for a long time and was aware that he (Sanjiv Bhatt) used to attend meetings, to which Shri Raval reacted by saying that he had accompanied him in Border Security Nodal Committee meetings, which used to deal with the Border Security only. Shri Raval also informed Shri Sanjiv Bhatt that he never worked in the Communal Branch and was not aware of anything about it. Shri Sanjiv Bhat thereafter disconnected the phone. Shri Shailesh Raval, PI later sent a complaint in writing to the Chairman, SIT that he feared reprisal from Shri Sanjiv Bhatt as he had refused to support the false claims of Shri Bhatt. This is yet another attempt on the part of Shri Sanjiv Bhatt to tutor a witness to depose in a particular manner so as to support the statement made by him, which further makes his claim of having attended the meeting at CM’s residence on 27-02-2002, false.”

Was Sanjiv Bhatt’s insistence that K C Pant be examined by the SIT only in his (Bhatt’s) presence not a clear attempt to threaten, tutor and pressurize a witness? This and other crucial facts such as his call records exposing his lies of being present in the 28 Feb 2002 10:30 AM meeting at Gandhinagar have been conveniently covered-up by the media, lest the truth be out!

Among all the people who had actually participated in that 27 February 2002 meeting apart from Narendra Modi, not a single one has said that Sanjiv Bhatt was present. Seven (7) people have given in writing that Sanjiv Bhatt was not present, this includes high-level Police officials like the then Ahmedabad Police Commissioner P C Pandey, the then DGP of Gujarat K Chakravarty and others. Note here that had any participant decided to talk against Narendra Modi, he or she would have been treated like a Hero/Heroine by the media, given a lot of ‘packages’ by the Congress and NGOs, and the then UPA Government and got immense publicity like Sanjiv Bhatt, but not one of them did so, despite there being immense gain from doing so.

There is the question raised by us in Myth 19- Is Narendra Modi a fool to openly give such orders to so many officials in such a meeting (on 27 February night) where any of the officers could have secretly recorded such orders or which would have had 9 witnesses against Narendra Modi? Even if, for argument’s sake, assuming he did want such orders to be issued, he would have done it through middlemen and other communicators being careful not to come into the picture directly!

This is not all. The SIT has pointed out some other facts as well, which disprove Sanjiv Bhatt’s claims of being present in the 27 February meeting and also some other of his false claims.

The media also knew all this since May 2012 onwards, when the SIT report went public, but forcibly suppressed all these facts about Sanjiv Bhatt which the Supreme Court told in Oct 2015, because it wanted to paint Sanjiv Bhatt as a ‘hero’ and to forcibly demonize and crucify Narendra Modi. Ask Rajdeep Sardesai, Barkha Dutt, NDTV, CNN-IBN, TimesNow [Yes, even TimesNow!], India Today and all the TV channels, and English dailies like Times of India, Hindustan Times, Indian Express, The Hindu, The Statesman, The Telegraph etc as to why they hid all these facts about Sanjiv Bhatt?

Magazines like Tehelka and Outlook spread half-truths and outrageous lies to somehow forcibly imply that Sanjiv Bhatt was present in that 27 February 2002 late night meeting. [See our answers to Questions 3 and 4 in our reply to 25 Questions asked by Outlook.] They suppressed all such direct evidences which nailed Sanjiv Bhatt’s lies since they wanted to crucify Narendra Modi throwing the truth to the winds.

   After his conviction in the 1989 custodial death case, the biased people in the media are again trying to make Sanjiv Bhatt a hero, ignoring all above facts. They are also indulging in blatant contempt of court by trying to call this as ‘vindictive politics of Modi and Shah’ as if they had anything to do with the court judgment!

Instead, they should demand Sanjiv Bhatt’s prosecution for perjury, for lying under oath to have been present in the 27 Feb 2002 late night meeting, making false charges on a Chief Minister, for lying under oath to have been present in the 28 Feb 2002 morning meeting at 10:30 AM, and making several other false claims, for threatening constable K C Pant to forcibly support his claim, as well as another witness Shailesh Raval. Do they have intellectual honesty? Of course not. Instead, they will suppress all these facts about Sanjiv Bhatt, call his conviction by a court in a totally unrelated case as ‘vindictive politics’, and will also describe his prosecution on any of the above grounds [if done] as ‘vindictive politics’!

For a full expose of all these lies on this issue, read Chapter 7, Myth 19 and Chapter 12 of our book “Gujarat Riots: The True Story”.

(The writer is the author of book “Gujarat Riots: The True Story” which gives all details about the 2002 riots- Godhra and after, one of the admins of www.gujaratriots.com and one of the admins of the Twitter handle @gujaratriotscom)

Advertisements
The opinions expressed within articles on "My Voice" are the personal opinions of respective authors. OpIndia.com is not responsible for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information or argument put forward in the articles. All information is provided on an as-is basis. OpIndia.com does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.