Shweta Bhatt, Sanjiv Bhatt

A couple of days later, the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) suddenly demolished parts of Bhatts’ house, in which he lived for the past 23 years -- an initiative, they say is based on absolutely illegal and flimsy grounds. AMC staff demolished the kitchen, the washrooms and parts of the bedrooms, while causing irreparable damage to the structural integrity of the entire house.

On September 5, the CID Crime branch entered his house at 8 am on the excuse of seeking his statement. “The CID Crime Branch officers entered our bedroom while I was sleeping there, in full knowledge, shamelessly invading my privacy, despite Sanjiv having already met with them and changing to leave with them,” Shweta Bhatt says.

On September 6, the CID presented Sanjiv Bhatt in the Palanpur court in a 22-year-old case and asked for a remand of 14 days. The court refused to grant remand, observing, “There is no justifiable ground to grant the police remand at this stage”.

The magistrate’s strict application of the law was labeled by the state government as an “act of insubordination” and challenged in the High Court. The government’s appeal for Sanjiv’s remand was heard by the Gujarat High court which granted 10 days remand.

Sanjiv Bhatt moved the Supreme Court challenging the remand order granted by the high court. The hearing was scheduled for September 24. The Supreme Court moved the hearing of the appeal to October 4, by which time the remand period would already be over. He was moved from police custody to judicial custody. Observing that the remand period was already over, the Supreme Court directed Sanjiv’s lawyers to “move the appropriate court” for the bail application.

The bail application filed in the sessions court was heard by the judge. The state government, in an apparent attempt to further delay the process, requested for 10 days to prepare an affidavit challenging the bail application and to prepare themselves for the case despite already having Sanjiv Bhatt in remand for a period of 10 days in a 22 year old case, already heard and stayed by the Supreme Court and were subsequently granted time till October 16.

On October 16, the sessions court was supposed to hear Sanjiv’s bail application. The audience was scheduled at 10:30 am. Nevertheless, the government lawyers arrived at 3 pm. To further delay the hearings, they asked for another 10-days extension to prepare the case.

Thus, there was another 10-days’ extension in a 22-year old case, already heard and stayed by the Supreme Court 22 years ago. A case which, incidentally, used to be the State of Gujarat vs the State of Rajasthan, but which suddenly became the State of Gujarat vs Sanjiv Bhatt.

The session’s court rejected Sanjiv Bhatt’s bail plea on December 12, following which he appealed the High Court. However, Justice A Y Kogje recused himself from the case, and the matter is listed before the court of Justice SH Vora, who has issued a notice to the state government to file its reply by January 8.

However, on January 8 the matter suddenly gets transferred from Judge S H Vora and gets re-listed in the court of Justice Sonia Gokani.

Shweta Bhatt’s car is hit by a truck on January 7. That explains her paranoia.

---

*Senior Ahmedabad-based journalist