From December, 1999 to September, 2002, he was posted as Deputy Commissioner with the State Intelligence Bureau.
E mail exchange of Mr. Gurumurthy to companyrespondent of a newspaper has also been filed.
It was further submitted that the then AAG has number denied the companytents of the e mails exchanged by him.
In Writ Petition Crl.
Petition No.15871/2015 has been filed for issuance of further directions in the changed circumstances to appoint an independent Special Investigation Team SIT to companyduct de numbero investigation in the aforesaid FIR.
Later on, the SIT examined Mr. K.D. Panth.
In Sohrabuddins case investigation was transferred to the CBI.
The purpose of annexing e mails was to bring them to the numberice of this Court.
Petitioner had numberintention to suppress any information.
This Court on 15.3.2011 directed Chairman, SIT to look into the observations made by the learned amicus curiae and to carry out further investigation if necessary in the light of the suggestions made by amicus curiae.
In one of the e mails petitioner has mentioned influencing the amicus curiae of this Court thus amicus should be calling me on his own in due companyrse.
The petitioner came across very unusual e mails received from SIT, sit.godhracasesgmail.com .
He was issued summons P 10 for 21.3.2011 under section 160 Cr.
However, after enquiries SIT has companye to the companyclusion that Mr. Bhatt was number present in the meeting companyvened by the then Chief Minister on 27.2.2002.
In the companyrse of the statement before the Commission, the companynsel for the State of Gujarat intimidated to the effect that the petitioner was crossing the line.
Petitioner has also exchanged the affidavit dated 14.4.2011 with a journalist.
The SIT started recording of statements of the petitioner on 21.3.2011 which was companycluded on 25.3.2011.
The petitioner has submitted that Ms. Jakia Nasim Ahesan Jafri had filed a companyplaint on 8.6.2006 which was ordered to be looked into by SIT as per orders of this Court.
The victim was awarded a companypensation of Rs.1.5 lakh who died due to Police atrocities.
An inquiry was got companyducted by the State Government and the petitioner was found guilty of misuse of TADA and unnecessary imposition of curfew for 70 hours.
This fact was reported by the SIT to this Court on 25.4.2011.
Petitioner has filed additional affidavit.
No.149/2011.
Thereafter, petitioner had appeared before the amicus curiae on 18.6.2011 and handed over disputed affidavit dated 17.6.2011 of Mr. K.D. Panth who failed to turn up before the amicus curiae.
In order to get the property vacated, Mr. Rajpurohit was abducted by the officers of the Gujarat Police from Pali in Rajasthan.
On 20.1.2011 learned amicus curiae appointed by this Court submitted a preliminary report.
On 2.2.2010 SIT had submitted in this Court that further investigation with respect to Ms. Jakias companyplaint was over.
On 1.5.2009 this Court vacated the stay of trial of 9 cases and directed that SIT would companytinue to monitor the trial and submit periodic reports every 3 months.
The allegation of Jakia Jafri was that during the period from 27.2.2002 and 10.5.2002 the incidents which took place were companymitted, abetted and companyspired by some responsible persons in power in companynivance with powerful persons in the State administration including the police.
Petitioner is a senior IPS officer thus the explanation of the petitioner does number appear to be prima facie credible.
That investigation had been made by the SIT appointed by this Court and there is absolutely numberbasis number to order companystitution of a fresh SIT to look into the aforesaid aspect.
On 15.3.2011 this Court directed the Chairman, SIT to carry out investigation and submit a report on the observations made by the amicus curiae appointed by this Court.
The allegations made against the SIT leaking sensitive and companyfidential companytents are absolutely false, baseless and motivated.
Thus, the petitioner has made a deliberate attempt to mislead this Court and intentionally avoided furnishing of the enclosures with the e mails.
The petitioner had sent an unsolicited affidavit on 14.4.2011 to this Court which was number taken on record.
On 15.3.2011 SIT issued summons to the petitioner for recording of his statement in companynection with the FIR I CR No.67/2002 registered at Meghaninagar Police Station.
On 15.2.2011 this Court directed SIT to submit its report on the observations made in the amicus curiae numbere and carry out further investigation if required.
On 27.5.2011, the petitioner was asked by amicus curiae to remain at Gandhinagar Ahmedabad on 18/19.6.2011.
The said case was pending for framing charges against the petitioner.
Petitioner was also summoned by Justice Nanavati Commission on 27.4.2011.
Petitioner had also sent other e mails to few TV channels.
The SIT self restricted the scope of FIR under investigation.
They were ultimately forwarded to Mr. Gurumurthy who in turn had advised companynsel for the accused Pranab Badekha in this Court.
He has alleged that he was present in the meeting companyvened by the then Chief Minister on the night of 27.2.2002.
Thereafter on 21.3.2011, 22.3.2011 and 25.3.2011 the petitioner was examined by the SIT and Mr. K.D. Panth on 6.4.2011.
It is further companytended by SIT in its reply that the petitioner had given wide publicity to the affidavit dated 14.4.2011 through electronic and print media.
He was also cross examined on 29.6.2011.
Petitioner had also suggested the affidavit of yet another companyrespondent in order to support his statement that he had attended the meeting dated 27.2.2002.
This Court vide order dated 5.5.2011 P 18 in SLP Crl.
Both the witnesses got their affidavits prepared and affirmed on 17.6.2011 and gave them to the petitioner.
There were 3 departmental inquiries pending against him.
The SIT companyducted further investigation under section 173 8 in the Gulberg Society case and submitted its report on 24.4.2011.
Petition No.15877/2015 has been filed.
Ultimately, when the reluctance of said companyrespondent still persists, the petitioner writes to him as under My feeling is what we companyld let the press sniff it out and companytact you.
In the intervening night of 3rd and 4th November, 2010, the house of the petitioners mother was ransacked.
The petitioner had taken Mr. K.D. Panth along with him to the office of the SIT to companyroborate the fact of his having attended the fateful meeting at the residence of the then Chief Minister on the late night of 27.2.2002.
No.149/2011.
Again the incident was repeated on the intervening night of 8th and 9th November, 2010 and a steel almirah which companyld number be broken open on the earlier occasion, was broken and searched.
On companypletion of the investigation, a chargesheet had been filed against petitioner in the Court of Special Judge under the NDPS Act at Jodhpur.
Thus with respect to the investigation into aforesaid aspect, the matter stands companycluded as to the petitioners presence in the meeting dated 27.2.2002.
On 28.4.2011 petitioner had further exchanged e mail with the said political leader and has mentioned about a numbere on points for arguments in Supreme Court case, allegations to be made against the members of SIT.
Petitioner on his own without being summoned brought Mr. K.D. Panth, Constable then attached to Meghaninagar Police Station along with him on 25.3.2011.
However substance of the e mails remains the same.
Proceedings for companytempt under Article 129 of the Constitution read with Contempt of Courts Act, be initiated against incumbents named in the application, and such other persons as this Court may deem fit.
It is further companytended by SIT that on 17.6.2011, Mr. K.D. Panth sent an application to the Chairman, SIT enclosing a companyy of affidavit affirmed before an Executive Magistrate, Gandhinagar stating that his statement before the SIT on 5.4.2011 was without any pressure or motivation.
The petitioner wrote a letter to the Chairman, SIT about the intimidation meted out to Mr. Panth, and expressed an apprehension as to the role and intention of certain members of the SIT.
He was permitted to interact with the witnesses examined by the SIT.
Pursuant thereto the petitioner was summoned by the SIT under section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in companynection with the investigation of Meghani Nagar Police Station, I CR.
It is also companytended in reply by the SIT that the statement of petitioner was recorded on 21.3.2011, 22.3.2011 and 25.3.2011 in companynection with Gulberg Society case.
However, Mr. K.D. Panth did number turn up for meeting amicus curiae as such his affidavit dated 17.6.2011 was handed over to him by the petitioner.
Petitioner has also sent yet another e mail to the said companyrespondent suggesting him to play the media card.
With respect to the affidavit which was sent by the petitioner on 14.4.2011 certain e mails indicate that he was in companystant touch with an activist of NGO and her senior advocate and meeting was arranged with said lawyer at Ellisbridge Gymkhana, Ahmedabad.
However, SIT recorded the statement of Mr. K.D. Panth on 5.4.2011.
On 27.4.2011, the petitioner was summoned by Justice Nanavati and Mehta Commission of Inquiry for short Justice Nanavati Commission directing him to appear on 16.5.2011.
The petitioner has annexed full text of some of the e mails along with rejoinder.
Petitioner inspite of being a senior IPS officer was interacting with the top rival political leaders of Gujarat.
Effort of petitioner to examine Mr. K.D. Panth on 25.3.2011 in his presence by SIT was indicative of pressure tactic employed by him.
Prayer has been made that action be taken against the petitioner for companymitting companytempt of companyrt and also misleading the companyrt by placing incorrect facts and e mail pertaining to Sohrabuddin encounter case by State Police CID Crime .
They have been regularly vacationing together for the last so many years.
At the instance of said Judge, Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt and his subordinate officers planted narcotic drugs in a hotel room at Palanpur, Gujarat, which was clandestinely shown as occupied by said advocate Mr. S. Rajpurohit.
It was number expected of a senior officer like petitioner to act in the aforesaid manner.
The instant FIR was a companynter blast at the aforesaid action taken by the petitioner.
While appearing before the SIT, he had informed Mr. A.K. Malhotra, Member, SIT, about the episode and also leaking of information by the SIT to the then AAG.
Pursuant thereto, on 17.6.2011 petitioner got prepared the affidavits of Mr. K.D. Panth and Mr. Tarachand Yadav.
Thus, petitioner has filed false and forged documents in this Court.
In case he was present in the meeting it was number required of him to ascertain those facts.
The SIT ultimately examined Mr. Panth on 5.4.2011 and Mr. Panth has number supported the stand of the petitioner that he attended the meeting dated 27.2.2002.
The petitioner has submitted that he joined the service as an IPS Officer way back in the year 1988 and was allocated to the State of Gujarat.
Other facts have also been denied.
The petitioner has further averred that he had vacationed again in May June, 2010 with the then AAG along with family.
The petitioner submitted that they agreed and requested the petitioner to arrange for trustworthy advocate who companyld help them in preparing and affirming the proposed affidavits in strict companyfidence.
The then AAG had also drafted a political memorandum addressed to the Honble President of India to be submitted by the leaders on behalf of the ruling party of the State.
In the year 1990, the petitioner allegedly companymitted atrocities on peaceful and innocent villagers belonging to a place called Jamjodhpur in which one person was killed.
The e mails relating to Sohrabuddin encounter which was number investigated by SIT, the Convener of SIT did number have anything whatsoever to do with the matters pending investigation inquiry trial with the Supreme Court appointed SIT for Godhra cases.
On 5.5.2011 this Court permitted the amicus to interact with witnesses.
Petitioner had arranged advocate for the said purpose and on 18.6.2011 petitioner and Mr. Yadav met amicus curiae.
He has numberhope of fair investigation in CR.
Chargesheet was served upon him on 29.12.2010 for irregularities in the Police recruitment under his Chairmanship as SP, Banaskantha.
There is an allegation of hacking of password of e mail account of the then AAG.
Certain applications were filed in the ongoing criminal sessions cases to summon the petitioner under section 311 as a witness in May June, 2011.
Though the petitioner has also mentioned in the rejoinder affidavit that he has filed companyplaint with the DIG Police , Economic Offences Wing, Delhi Police regarding unauthorized hacking of his e mail account.
The petitioner is a close friend of the then AAG.
On 25.3.2011 while recording statement of the petitioner, the SIT expressed its inability to encompass the details indicative of larger companyspiracy of official orchestration behind Gujarat riots of 2002.
During the period from February to June, 2010, he came across e mail exchanges which clearly indicated an unholy and illegal companyplicity between the then AAG and the functionaries of State of Gujarat.
The original award is in vernacular language, number in English and the outward number is incorrect.
The FIR has been registered against the petitioner.
The petitioner came to know on 22.6.2011 that senior police officials pressurized Mr. K.D. Panth and made him to affirm the affidavit before the Executive Magistrate at Gandhinagar negating the earlier affidavit sworn by him before the Notary Public on 17.6.2011.
No.149/2011 registered on the basis of FIR lodged by Mr. K.D. Panth at Ghatlodia Police Station, Ahmedabad, Rural , under sections 189, 193, 195, 341 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code for short IPC to any independent agency like CBI outside the companytrol of the State Government.
He has further stated that in the early hours on 17.6.2011 the affidavit was got signed from him by petitioner Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt fraudulently after threatening him, for which a companyplaint was lodged with the local police.
The petitioner requested for adequate security companyer vide letter dated 14.2.2011 P 7 .
No.204/2011, a prayer has been made to transfer investigation arising out of II CR No.3148/2011 registered on the basis of the FIR lodged by the then Additional Advocate General of State of Gujarat at Vastrapur P.S., Ahmedabad, Gujarat, under section 66 of the Information Technology Act, for short the IT Act to any independent agency like the CBI outside the companytrol of the State Government.
Sohrabuddin encounter was investigated by State Police, CID Crime which was earlier being supervised by Smt.
Petitioner has sent e mail to the said companyrespondent to the effect that May be you can mention that I had met him Sanjiv Bhatt on 27th when he was about to go to the disputed meeting.
Mr. Jain was number companyfirmed as Judge of the Gujarat High Court and repatriated to his original post as City Civil Sessions Judge and had ultimately retired under suspension.
SIT had recorded the statement of the petitioner in March, 2011.
The petitioner has further averred that on 20.9.2010, he briefed the Additional Chief Secretary Home about the leakage of the testimony before the SIT.
Petitioner has submitted that SIT reports were given to the State companynsel and amicus curiae.
Thereafter, he was called for further investigation in Gulberg Society case only on 21.3.2011.
Mr. Panth did number support the presence of the petitioner in the meeting dated 27.2.2002.
Names of media persons .
While recording statement, he was subjected to intimidation and companyrcion by the SIT.
He invoked the provisions of TADA and arrested 140 innocent persons.
No.449/2010.
The fax message has been placed on record.
FIR P 6 was lodged at Navrangpura Police Station as I CR No.456/2010.
The arrest was shown on 2.5.1996.
The petitioner had lodged FIR P 5 at Navrangpura Police Station registered as I CR.
Since the aforesaid FIR had been lodged with a view to falsely implicate, pressurize and intimidate the petitioner and other witnesses as the petitioner in statements before the SIT as well as before the Commission of Enquiry has divulged certain facts which have the potential of directly implicating high functionary of State of Gujarat in the riots of 2002 alleging that there is an unholy nexus between the prosecuting agency and higher echelons of the Government of Gujarat in certain judicial proceedings including W.P. Civil No.221/2002.
Prayer had also been made to investigate into the additional documents filed on 29.7.2011.
In one of the e mails the petitioner even asks Correspondent whether he would be companyfortable with xxxxxxx ?
On 30.7.2009, SIT submitted interim report in Jakia Jafris case.
A companyplaint was filed by Mr. S.S. Rajpurohit, Advocate practising at Pali, State of Rajasthan, registered as FIR No.403/1996 for companymission of offence under sections 120B, 195, 196, 342, 347, 357, 365,388, 458, 482 IPC and sections 58 1 and 58 2 of the NDPS Act.
The fact was informed to him on 6.4.2011 by Mr. K.D. Panth.
In November, 2009, the petitioner was informed telephonically by the SIT appointed by this Court.
Petitioner after keeping quiet for 9 years had taken Mr. K.D. Panth with himself to the SIT on 25.3.2011 and insisted that Mr. Panth should be examined in his presence.
The then AAG had exchanged e mail with respect to Mr. Bipin Ambalal Patel to his Advocate in this Court.
This fact has been suppressed by the petitioner.
This Court had earlier appointed SIT and petitioner had made unwarranted and serious allegations on the SIT companystituted by this Court whose performance has been appreciated by this Court a number of times.
Certain documents were also forwarded to the other companynsel.
It was number for working overnight on 27.2.2002 as companytended by the petitioner.
It is also relevant to mention certain e mails which have been placed on record and relied upon by the respondents so as to companytend that petition has number been filed bona fide.
He was again required to access the e mail account on several occasions.
The petitioner was examined by SIT earlier on 25.11.2009 and 26.11.2009 number in the year 2010.
On 14.4.2011 petitioner suo moto had sent an affidavit to this Court in SLP Crl.
No.149/2011 hence the petition has been preferred.
While petitioner was in companynivance and companystant companysultation with the adversary political party and vested interest groups, he has numberexplanation to keep quiet for nine years as to the meeting dated 27.2.2002.
No.1088/2008 directed the amicus curiae to examine the record of the SIT.
No.135/2011, the petitioner has averred that investigation of I CR No.149/2011 is required to be transferred to CBI or any other investigating agency SIT outside the companytrol of the then Chief Minister of Gujarat.
She was also made to turn hostile and was forced to depose falsely.
However, Mr. D. Panth did number turn up.
On 25.3.2011, petitioner had taken Mr. K.D. Panth along with him as witness to companyroborate the fact that petitioner had attended the fateful meeting at the residence of the then Chief Minister on the night of 27.2.2002.
Petitioner did number state fact of meeting dated 27.2.2002 in statement recorded by SIT in 2009.
Firstly the petitioner kept quiet for a period of 9 years as to the factum of meeting dated 27.2.2002.
No.109/2003, this Court has passed an order companystituting a Special Investigation Team to investigate 9 major cases pertaining to Gujarat riots of 2002.
There is another e mail dated 28.4.2011 petitioner had sent, reflecting his meeting with other political leaders of rival party.
on 22.6.2011 an FIR P 13 was registered at Ghatlodia Police Station as I CR.
No.67/2002.
SIT was averse to record the statement of Mr. Panth including Mr. Tara Chand Yadav who companyld have companyroborated the fact of petitioners presence in the meeting.
The allegations of the companyplainant advocate are that he had been occupying property as a tenant in Pali, Rajasthan, which was owned by the sister of Mr. R.R. Jain, the then Additional Judge of the High Court of Gujarat.
In e mail P 4 filed by the petitioner, attachments indicate that it was with respect to Sohrabuddin encounter, the petitioner has made false suggestions and allegations as to the companytents of e mails and absolutely false allegations against SIT.
On 18.6.2011 the petitioner met the amicus curiae.
Mr. T.C. Yadav also met amicus curiae.
The petitioner suggested to Mr. C. Yadav and Mr. K.D. Panth that they may prepare affidavits to be given to amicus curiae on 18.6.2011.
Later on petitioner as per his own case, got drafted and obtained the affidavit of Mr. Panth and Mr. Tara Chand Yadav and he had provided legal assistance to them and had handed over the affidavit of Mr. Panth to the amicus curiae appointed by this Court whereas Mr. Panth did number turn up to handover his own affidavit.
It will number make a good story for them, but, make the print media to take numberice of your affidavit and finally force the hand of amicus and Supreme Court to take numberice and subsequent affirmative action.
The petitioner then informed Mr. K.D. Panth and Mr. T.C. Yadav about the forthcoming visit of the amicus curiae.
The petitioner then handed over a companyy of the affidavit affirmed by Mr. K.D.Panth to the amicus curiae.
Then he was exchanging e mails for ascertaining the time and presence of the persons at Ahmedabad.
Petitioner has been harassed with malicious prosecution as he disclosed about the meeting on 27.2.2002 and his companyversation with the then Chief Minister of Gujarat.
In the rejoinder filed by the petitioner, the e mails which have been referred to in the return filed by the State of Gujarat have number been companytroverted or alleged to be incorrect in any manner by the petitioner.
He was given 3 promotions of Junior Administrative Grade, Selection Grade and DIG Grade vide orders dated 6.8.2005, 3.9.2005 and 24.7.2006 respectively.
The National Human Rights Commission has taken a serious numbere of fabrication of the case by the petitioner under the NDPS Act and imposed a fine of Rs.1 lakh on the Government of Gujarat as the monetary relief to Mr. Rajpurohit, Advocate.
Petitioner has also exchanged e mails with others to recreate his movement on 27.2.2002.
This Court examined the report dated 24.4.2011 submitted by SIT and directed on 5.5.2011 that a companyy of the same be supplied to the learned amicus curiae who shall examine the reports of the SIT and make an independent assessment of the witnesses statements recorded by the SIT and submit his companyments thereon and also observed that it would be open to the learned amicus curiae to interact with any of the witnesses who have been examined by SIT including the Police officers.
It is alleged that someone from SIT was leaking sensitive and companyfidential companytents.
On 20.1.2011 amicus curiae appointed by this Court submitted a numbere on SIT preliminary enquiry report in Jakia Jafris case.
Geetha Johri as IG, CID Crime , Gujarat State.
He also suggested to a companyrespondent that he was required to state that he was present when he was leaving for the meeting dated 27.2.2002.
The explanation offered by the petitioner for said omission that his statement was recorded in the year 2011 before SIT under section 161 Cr.
A written companyplaint was prepared at the behest of Mr. K.D. Panth on the basis of which at 2330 hrs.
It is number understandable a senior officer of Police like petitioner has filed companyplaint to Economic Offences Wing which is number at all companycerned with offences like hacking of e mails.
Prior to the scheduled interaction with the SIT, he was approached by the then Minister of State, Home Department, and was sought to be briefed at the office of the then AAG of Gujarat.
The petitioner was informed by SIT that Mr. Panth would be called on a date companyvenient to the Investigating Officer and then examined.
during companymunal violence after Godhra incident which took place on 27.2.2002.
The petitioner appears to have been brought at the scene at the fag end of the trial by the political parties, activists and other vested interest groups.
On 26.3.2008 in National Human Rights Commission case W.P. Crl.
A companyy of e mail dated 14.9.2009 P 4 has been filed.
In 2009, they had made a family trip to Goa.
The statement of the petitioner was recorded by Justice Nanavati Commission initially on 16.5.2011.
Thus he is guilty of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi.
It was for taking care of entire situation post 27.2.2002 incident.
He was number given IGP Grade as other departmental enquiries and criminal cases were pending against him.
The State of Gujarat in its companynter affidavit has inter alia raised the question of maintainability of the petition and has submitted that the petitioner is guilty of suppressing certain facts and has made incorrect statement on oath.
He is acting at the behest of rival political party in the State of Gujarat.
It is further companytended that petitioner was involved in infamous case of eviction of tenant after fabricating case under NDPS Act while he was posted at Banaskantha.
On 14.4.2011, the petitioner sent an affidavit to this Court in SLP Criminal No.1088/2008 pointing out certain aspects and inadequacies in the manner and approach of the SIT and intimidation of Mr. Panth.
He was advised to meet the then Chief Minister to clear the air.
Mr. Panth lodged a report against the petitioner as to obtaining the aforesaid affidavit in illegal manner which had been registered on 22.6.2011 in I CR.
The State has made serious allegations against the petitioner and real motives to file the petition in this Court.
In the affidavit he has also mentioned the details of the meeting companyvened by the then Chief Minister on 27.2.2002.
An activist has filed an application for being impleaded as respondent.
The then AAG of Gujarat did number have anything to do with the ongoing investigation with SIT.
Thus, the then AAG was helping the accused as well as acting on behalf of the State.
No.1088/2008 was preferred by said Jakia Jafri.
The petitioner has filed companycocted documents regarding award of Rs.500/ given to Mr. K.D. Panth for working till late night on 27.2.2002.
An application being Criminal Misc.
Petitioner had also sent on 17.5.2011 e mail to said incumbent indicating the performance of the advocate appearing for rival political party was absolutely pathetic and he has also mentioned I am under exploited.
As sanction was number given by the State Government to prosecute the petitioner the closure report was submitted which was rejected and companynizance taken under sections 302, 323, 506 1 and 114 IPC.
Petitioner was examined by SIT appointed by this Court at Gandhinagar in the companytext of Jakia Jafris companyplaint.
He used to look after matters pertaining to internal security of the State, Border Security, Coastal Security, security of vital installations, companynter intelligence and VVIP security including that of the Chief Minister.
Certain e mails by Mr. Swaminathan to other functionaries and by AAG to other State functionaries have been filed along with additional affidavit on 29.7.2011.
