Ahmedabad: Special Investigation Team
(SIT) has asked the suspended IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt to
produce the original copy of the State Intelligence Bureau
(SIB) alert message he had issued after the controversial
meeting, chaired by Chief Minister Narendra Modi on February
In a notice, issued under section 91 of Criminal
Procedure Code (CrPC) on January 13, the SIT had directed
Bhatt to produce the original and/or office copy of the alert
fax message, which he had attached to his letter of January 4
to the Nanavati Commission, with a copy to the agency.
"You are also directed to produce any other documents/
wireless message, fax messages available with you, which are
relevant to the investigation (of Gulburg riot Case)," SIT
further stated in the notice to Bhatt, issued by investigating
officer Himanshu Shukla.
The alert fax message, according to Bhatt, was issued
by him as the DCP of State Intelligence Bureau (SIB) on
February 27, 2002, after attending the late evening meeting
called by Modi.
According to the message, the state government had
decided to bring bodies of `kar sevaks` to Ahmedabad. It had
also cautioned massive mobilisation of local cadres of VHP and
Bajrang Dal for enforcing bandh on February 28, 2002, besides
anticipating widespread communal violence and requesting
preventive action from police.
Bhatt, in his reply, wrote to SIT chief R K Raghavan
yesterday stating that the notice was "outrageously shocking"
as SIT was asking for documents that he had already given to
SIT member A K Malhotra in 2009 and later to Shukla in 2011.
"In the normal course of investigation, the
investigating officer should have called for the `original
and/or office copy of the aforesaid fax message` from the
State Intelligence Bureau, Gandhinagar and the offices of
respective recipients of the said fax message," Bhatt said in
"This latest act of Himanshu Shukla only reinforces
the persistent doubts about the motive and intent of the SIT,"
"It seems that for some inexplicable reason, the SIT,
which had continued to intentionally disregard very important
aspects of the investigation into the complaint of Zakia Nasim
Ahesan Jaffery; has now also started indulging in suppression
and/or disappearance of vital evidence with a view to screen
powerful offenders, including Narendra Modi from legal
punishment," he added.
He also pointed out that this had also apparently
manifested in "deliberate reluctance of SIT to examine key
witnesses, who could provide very vital information about the
February 27, 2002 meeting held at the residence of Modi."
This is the same meeting, in which, as alleged by
Bhatt in an affidavit filed in Supreme Court last year, Modi
had directed state government officials and his party
colleagues to let "Hindus vent out their anger" during the
2002 riots and Muslims be "taught a lesson".
Bhatt further pointed out that he had provided to the
SIT, during his deposition, a list of important witnesses, who
could corroborate his presence at the controversial meeting
called by Modi.
He also requested Raghavan to provide guidance to his
officers and dissuade them from indulging in acts aimed at
shielding/screening the high and mighty criminals including,
Modi, who are firmly ensconced in the Government of Gujarat.
Bhatt has further asked for copies of his depositions
before the SIT as well as the list of documentary evidence,
that he had provided to A K Malhotra and Himanshu Shukla.