8/2/2019 Sit Volumeii 371-458

1/88

A56: Shri K.K. Mys_orewala, formerly Sr. PI, Naroda P.S.,Ahmedabad City, Gujarat.Shri K.K. Mysorewala has stated that he remained posted as

Senior PI in charge Naroda P.S. during the period 2792001 to3032002. He has further stated that Naroda P.S..has got a hugearea of 40 square.kms with a population of 4.5 lakhs with majority. . .of Hindus aggregating about 4.30 lakhs with Muslims in minority.According to Shri Mysorewa~a. the areas u~der Naroda P.S, havea majority of Sangh Parivar Activists but the place has no historyof communal riots or being a communally .sensitive area,

He has further stated that on 27-2-2002 at about 0930 hrs,he had received the information from OCP, Zone-IV that twocoaches 'of Sabarrnati Express carrying many kar-sevaks fromGujarat returning from Ayodhya were set ablaze by somemiscreants near Godhra ~ilway station Further, DCP, Zone-IVShri P.B. Gondia had Iso given him instructlons to makebandobast a~d to increase patrolling Inhis jurlsdlctlon to avoid anyuntoward incident. On 27 2-2002. in compliance to the ControlRoom message, 12 kar-s vaks, namely (1) Dushyantbhai Vyas,(2) Yog.eshbhai Bhatt, (3) Daksheshbtiai Raval, (4) PramodbhaiTrlvedi, (5) Prakashbhai Raval,' (6) Bhupendrabhai' Bhatt, (7)Jatinbhai Patel,(a) Nanjibhai Patel, (9) Dahyabhai Prajapati, (10)Sureshbhai" Sanchania, (11) Dharmeshbhai Trivedi and (12)Gautambhai Trivedi, all belonging to Nava Naroda area werearranged to be escorted to their respective plaoes under policeprotection from Ahmedabad rattway station at about 1745 hrs on27-2-2002. Shri My"sorewala has mentioned that these kar-sevaks,on their return narrated the .eye witness account of the Godhracarnage which was a' primary cause of provocation amongst theHindus residing in Naroda area and as a repercussions to the said. .provocation, two incidents one relating to a'cotton. workshop burntat Parshwanath Township and the other relating to the beating of aMuslim by three-four unknown persons took place between 1800hrs to 1900 hrs on 27-2-2002 for which twoseparate CRNos 96/02and 97102 'Wereregistered in Naroda P.S.I '

371

8/2/2019 Sit Volumeii 371-458

2/88

Shri Mysorewala has further. stated that on 27-2-2002, abandn c~11was', given by. Vishwa Hindu Parishad, which wassupported by other Hindu organizations and therefore, leaders ofboth Hindu and Muslim community were contacted by him tomaintain peace and 'harr_nony in the area. Accordlng to ShriMysor'ewala, on-.28-2-2002, the bandobast was started at about0700 hrs and five private vehicles were requisitioned for effectivepatrolling in the area. Further, 15 fixed points were provided withrequisite police personnel w-hich included rnlnlmurn two personsout of which one was with rifle in the places where the minoritycommunity people were residir)g and the places of worship werelocated. Also, in addition two Pis, five PSis, 30 ASls and 50 PCswere kept ready along with eight vehicles.

Shri Mysorewala has further stated that on 28-2-2002, duringthe Gujarat bandh, tense situation prevailed in the area resulting inlack of confidence between the two communities and people fromboth the communities formed groups and moved in public streets.As per Shri Mysor'ewala, the police patrolling vehicles dispersedthe mobs as a result of which the crowds went into hiding in smalllanes and by lanes and as soon as the police party I~ft the spot,.the mob reassembled and became aggressive. Further, at about1030 hrs on 28-2-2002, a group of Hindus started gathering inlarge scale opposite Nataraj Hotel in Naroda Patia where NooraniMasjid is located and in Jikar Hussain ni Chal, a group of Muslimsstarted gathering in' large scale. In the meanwhile, Shri P.B.Gondia, DCP, Zone-IV and Shr! M.T. Rana, ACP, G division alsoarrived at the spot and utder their instructions the groups weredispersed by lathi yharge At that time one TATA 407 vehicleparked near Noorani Masji was started.and driven. by a Muslim ina rash and' negligent mann r straight into the Hindus mob therebycausing injures to two persons and leaving one dead, Shri

, 'Mysorewala has stated to have chased the vehicle, apprehendedthe driver and arrested him and after this incident, the rumour hadspread amongst the Hindus that three persons had been killed bya'!'IIusllrr; driver of TATA 407 vehicle; which ,escalated the tension.

372

8/2/2019 Sit Volumeii 371-458

3/88

During this period, one person belonging to Hindu community waskilled by two Muslims ne:arAnand cinema of Naroda village and asa retaliation of the same both the Muslimswere caught by the moband burnt alive.

According 10 'Shri My,sorewala, Shri MK. Tandon arrived atNaroda Patia a'round 1210 hrs and. after taking stock of the'situation and h.olding discussions with the CP,. a curfew was. .ordered to be imposed at atiout 1230 hrs'in Naroda P.S. area byway of announcement over loud speaker installed on the policevehicles. Th.eJt. CP, Sector-Il, thereafter, left Naroda Patia. ShriMysorewala. has. further stated tha.t after half an hour,.. onedisfigured body of one Ranjit Vanzara with his eyeballs oozing out;face smashed was found lying outside the Chal as a result ofwhich, a group belon!;ling to a Hindu community got excited andattacked Noorani Masjid and also aitacked the houses nearby andshops belonging 1: 0 Mus.lims. As. p~r Shri Mysorewala, thereafter,the situation became extremely tense and the mob became violentand damaged the Minarets of the Noorani Masjid and severalhouses & shops belonging to the Muslims. Shri P.B. Gondia, DCP,Zone-IV,. thereafter, left Naroda Patia at. about 1430 hrs. Shri,M-ysorewalahas furlher stated that at about 1510 hrs, a messagewas received that a mob of around 2000 Hindus had gatheredoutside Naroda P.S. inwhich around 600Muslims had been sentby the police. for protection and Ihereafier,h.e along with Shri M.T.Rana vlsit~d Naroda "P.S. immediately and dispersed the crowd bylathi charge and the~ returned to Naroda Patia. By that time thetension at Naroda Patia had diffused to 'some extent. After thatShri Mysorewala along with Shri MT Rana went to Naroda Gamat about 1630 hrs and' took sto-ckof the situatlon..!;?hriMysorewalalearnt that at the corner of .Ioshlwada eight persons were burntalive: ~ Y : ' ? I . mob of Hindus and that an offence in-this regard hadalready b~en registered 'at 161.0 hrs vide CR No. 98/02 by ShriV.S. Gohn;' Second .PI. Shri Mysorewala along with Shri Ranavisited the scene of oftener and returned to Naroda Patia at about1730 hrs and by that time he situation had further calm down and,

rf. 373

8/2/2019 Sit Volumeii 371-458

4/88

therefore, Shri M.T. Rana left for Meghaninagar area at about1745 hrs.

At about 1$.10 .hrs, Shri Mysorewala went to Thakkernagar,where someone informed him that 17 Muslims had been burnt.b!'!hind Husearnnaqer and therefore, he proceeded to the spotAfter reaching there at about 1845 hts, Shri Mysorewala found thatmany bodies were burning between Gangotri society and. .Gopinath society and the local residents refused to give water andhe had to use force to get the water to extinguish the fire. In thisincident 27 persons had received burnt injuries and wereimmediately shifted to. civil hospital. On his return, ShriMysorewala found tha't around 50 $ dead bodies were lying betweenthe two societies and a case hi this regard was registered atNaroda P.S. at 2045 hrs 'VideCR No. 100/02 in which five accused. .namely, Babu Bajrangi,. Kishan Korani, Raju Chaumal, P.J. Rajput i;'and Harlsh Rohera were named, He has further stated that in thenight of 28-2-2002 more than 2000 Muslims were sent to thedifferent relief camps and on (11-03-2002, 450 Muslims who hadtaken shelter in SRP, ~roup-II premises were also shifted todifferent relief camps. Accordinq to Shri Mysorewala, ar a result ofpolice tiring one Hindu and-one Muslim died on the spot.

On the~._basisof the investigation conducted, departmentalaction has already been recommended against Shri K.K,Mysorewala for the various administrative lapses on his part.However, no criminal case Is-made out again~t him.A-57:Shri M.T. Rana, formerly ACP,

Ahmedabad City, Gujarat.Shri M.T Rana has stated that he was posted as ACP, G

'G' division,

division in April, '2001 and used to supervise the work of threepolice stations namely Meghaninagar, Sardarnagar & Naroda andretired frornGovt. service on 31-12-2005.

Shri Rana has further stated that on 27-02-2002, he reachedNaroda Patiya at about 1030 hrs and remained there till about

374

8/2/2019 Sit Volumeii 371-458

5/88

1730,hrs-along, with Shri K.K. Mysorewala, the then Sr. PI, NarodaP-S. He. has corroborated the version of Shri Mysorewala_However, tie has denied the allegations levelled by Smt. JakiaNasim about the allegationt of subversion of Justice and tamperingof evidence.

C:n the basis of he investigation conducted, departmentalaction has already been recommended against Shri M.T. Rana forthe various administrative lapses on his part. However, no criminalcase is made out against him.A-58: Shri '. Tarun . Barat, formerly PI,- Crime Branch,Ahmedabad City, Gujarat.

Shr'j Tarun' Barot has stated that he was entrusted with theinvestigation of Naroda P.S. CR No. I 98/02 relating to the death of11 Muslims killed in 2002 riots and that he had investigated thiscase from 19-05-2002 ~o30-05-2002' and subsequently with effectfrom 30-11-2002 to 10-04-2608: Shri Barot has further stated. thatduring the course of investiqatlcn, he had made an attempt tocollect the call detail records of mobile p)1ones ofsuspected/accused persons, but the Cell companies inf-ormedthatthe data was not available. However, he did not approach ShriRahui Sharma to get the call details as he did not know that thelatter was in the possession of the call details of all the- numbersoperatingfr~ri'l Ahmedabad City .during the riots period and no-onehad told him about it: According to Shri Barot, he did not knowwhether Shri Rahul Sharma, SP had handed over a copy of theCDs to Nanavati-Shah Commission of Inquiry or BanerjeeCommittee appointed by the Railwaysto enquire into the Godhraincident. Shri Barat has also stated. that a news item had appearedin an English daily regarding the mobile phone details of MayaKodnani and Jaydeep Patel and o-nthe basis of the said newsitem, both of them were summoned about their location on 28-02-2002 and thereafter. Both, Mayaben Kodnani and Jaydeep Patelinformed that they were present at Sola Civil Hospital. ShriMayaben Kodnani confirmed that her mobile phone remained inr

375

8/2/2019 Sit Volumeii 371-458

6/88

her possession, whereas Jaydeep Patel claimed that his mobilewas left in rus car, which was taken away by his driver. Shri Barothas also stated that efforts were made to get their call details fromthe mobile service providers, but the same were 'not provided andas" SUChthe pall details could not be obtained, analysed and crosschecked. The pl!3~ put forward by Shri Barot is not' convincinginasmuch as the news about the production of the CDs containingGall detail records Qf mobile phones at Ahmedabad City by ShriRahul Sharma before tre Nariavatl Commission 'had appeared inalmost all the newspapers and, therefore. it "i s difficult- to believethat Shri Barot did not come to know about it.

Shri Barat" has' denied the allegations leve.lled by Smt. JakiaNasirn and stated that he had only investigated Naroda Gam case,in.whiCh.11. p . arsons were k~ied. He. has f.Uther s.tated t..h.at .h.ehasput in his b.est and had ar ested 27 accused persons out of 49

. .involved and in addition h had arrested 6 accused persons inNaroda Patiya case and 1 n Gulberg Society case. He has alsoclaimed to' have saved the lives of 30 Muslims from Iqgah nearPrem darwaja duripg' the riots on 2~-02-2002.He has also statedth~t good work done .by him, had been acorecrated 'by fhe se~ioroffieers and he had been rewardedand awarded Indian PoliceMedal.

There appears to be a serious lapse on the part of ShriTarun Baret, the then PI and now ACP, SOG, Ahmedabad in notcollec,ting a copy of the CD c~ntainin,g the call detail records ofAhmedabad City from Shri Ra~ul Sharma and the same deservesto be dealt with major penalty departmental proceedlnqs againsthim. However, no criminal case is made out against him.A-59: Shri Narendra Amin, formerl,Y DCP(Crime), Ahmedabad:

Shri Narendra Amin has stated that in 2002, he was postedas ACP, G division' in Surat City. He has. further stated that onreceipt df a Control Room message about the burning of a railwaycoach of Sabarmati Express near Godhra Railway Station, he tookpreventive actions and rounded up 1.23 p,erscns and intensive

376

8/2/2019 Sit Volumeii 371-458

7/88

patrolling was ordered ,as a result of which, there was no majoruntoward lncloent took place. He has also stated that he shiftedthe persons of minority community to 'safer places and ensured thesecurity of 29 Madersas and Masjids etc.

He has denied the allegation levelled by Smt. Jakia Nasimand stated that he had not been concerned in any of thecontroversial mass carnage investigation and there had neverbeen any serious alleqation.of subversion of justice and tamperingof evidence against him.' Shr; 'Amin has also stated that theallegations are, vague, general, absurd and had been maliciouslymade against him .and need no further explanation.

Since the allegations are vague and general'in nature andthere is no evidence to support the same, therefore, t~e same arenot established.A-60:Shri G.C. Raiger, formerly Add!. DG (Int.), Gujarat.

Shri G C. Raiger has stated that' he remained posted asAddl. DG (Int.): during the period .06-04-2001, to 09-04-2002 andhad retired from service:as DG, Home-guard on 30-06-2007. He

has further stated ttiat he has been appointed as a ,Member of.Justloe,Mehta Commission of Inquiry into, the Hooch tragedy atAHmedabad in 2009 by the Govt. of Gujarat.

He has further stated about the collection of intelligenceabout the movement Offkar-sevakS' in February, 2002 by localIntelligence Bureau. He as also stated that a TP message dated27-02-2002 regarding t e return journey of kar-sevaks wasreceived on 28-02-2002 at 0815 hrs, i.e. after the Godhra trainburning incident had taken place on 27-04-2002 morning.According to Shri Raiger, he was on casual leave from 26-02-2002to 28-02-2002, a.ndremained away to Rajasthan: but returned on27-02-2002,evening. He has further. stated that on return to. ",.. ",Ahmedabad he telephoned Shri K. Cbakravarthl, the then DGP on27.D2.2002 evening and offered tocut short his leave and come toGandhinagar, if required, to which the DGP had asked him to join

377

8/2/2019 Sit Volumeii 371-458

8/88

on 2B.02.2002. He denied to have attended the law & order reviewmeetinQ held by Chief Minister on 27-02-2002 late'In the night norwas he informed about it by the DGP, SCR :or State IB ControlRoom. He has further stated that Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, the then DCI(S) did not tell him on 28.02:2002 or even thereafter about havingattended the aforesaid law & order meeting held by Chief Ministerat his residence on 27.02.2002 ni~ht, its, agenda or the mattersdiscussed. Shri Raiger has denied having' been informed by ShriSanjiv Bhatt about any illegal instructions given by eM. He hasstated that Shri Sanjiv Bhatt. never attended any meeting called byCM along' with him. However, sometimes when the meetingrela,ted to the subject being dealt with by him, Shri Sanjiv Bhatt did.accornpany him, but was made to wait outside. He has deniedrecollection of having attended any meeting at CM's residence on28.02.2002 morning. However, he has confirmed that on28.02.2002, while he was sitting with the DGP at about 1100 or1130 hrs, Shri I.K. Jadeja, the then Minister came there. He hasfurther stated that all of them tOOKtea and after some time DGPhad asked some of the staff members to shift Shri Jadeja to somevacant chamber. Shri Raige'r has denied to have seen Shri Jadeja,Subsequently in DGP's office or in the. State Contrbl Room. Hedoes not recollect as to whether Shri S"anjiv Bhatt was presentthere or not. He has also stated that Shri .Sanjiv Bhatt never usedto approach the DGP directly, when hewas present in the office.He has. further stated that the intelligenc"e messages were notsigned by the DGP normally and the same were signed elther byAdd]. DG (Int.) or any ot' the junior officers. Shrl Raiger hasconfirmed to have attended a law & order review meeting called byChief Minister on ~8.02.2002 (A.N.), in which Chfef Secretary,ACS (Home). DGP and Secretary, Home Department werepresent. According to 9hri Reiger; either Principal Secretary to CMor Secretary to eM was also present. !",urther as per SHri Raiger,in 'thlSrrieeting law' & order situation, deployment of extra Para

, .' -"Military Forces and the issue relating" to requisitioning of Army

. r 37 8f

8/2/2019 Sit Volumeii 371-458

9/88

were ciscussed and " i i i : was decided by eM that Army should berequlsltioned to control the ernerqtnqlaw & order situation:

Shri Raiger has further stated that on 28.02.2002 (A.N.)" Shri-Sanjiv Shatt, the then bCI (S) had conveyed a message based 'onlocal IS unit, Ahmedabad City report about the collection of a mobout side tneG ulberg Society,. wh_ereLate AhesanJafr!, Ex-MPwasresiding ahd also about inadequate presence of police on the spot.This information was passed on to'Ahmedab~d City Police ControlRoom. ~hri Raiger has a~mitted to have mel-DGP aiong with ShriSanjiv Bhatt thereafter and informed him about the developingsituation at Gulberg Society and requested the DGP to impressupon CP to declare curfew in the ar-ea_immediately. Shri ,Raiger;has also stated that DGP rang up CP immediately, who informedthat curfew hao .alreaoy been declared in the said area. ShriRai'ger speeifieaily denied that Shri Sarijiv Bhatt informed himabout his direct talk with Chief Minister regarding the developingsituation in Ahmedabad. City as wel'l other cities in Gujara! State.He 'has further s!ated that there was no system. of 'submittingmonthly movement diary in State IB and that Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, the.then DCI never submitted any such diary to him, Shfi Raiger hasealegorically stated that there was 'no post of Staff Officer to Addl.DG (Int.), as claimed by Shri Sanjiv Bhatt

Shri Raiger .has stated that he was' transferred as ,ADG(Admn.) on 09-04~2002and handed overthe charg_eto Shri R.B.Sreekumar, who filed an affidavit before the Nanavati Commi_ssionfor his period as well. .:

Shri Raiger has denied- to have knOW)1 Late Ahesan Jaffi,ExMP and has stated that to the best of hi~ recollection, the latterdid not contact him either personally or over phone for help. ShriRaiger has also stated that a fax message was sent by his officeon 2802-2002, to CP, Ahmedabad city under 'intimation to HomeSecretary and DGP that it has been learnt that Ex-MP, LateAhesan Jafri had been killed by a Hindu mob, a ten year Muslimgirl beheaded and some more houses in Gulberg Society had

379

8/2/2019 Sit Volumeii 371-458

10/88

been set on fire with the possibility of more loss of life andproperty. He has also statf that this m'essage was sent by PI E.LChristin on the basis of i elligence inputs received in his office,but he can not recollect t e time at which the said message wassent.

Since no'ai11egationhas been levelled against Shri Raiger bySmt. Jakia Nasim, no further action is called for in the matter.. .A-61:St')ri,. K.R Kaushik, formerly Add!.DG, CID (Crime &. Railways), Gujarat State.

Shri K.R. Kaushik has stated that he remained posted asAdd!. DG. CID (Crime & Railways) during ,2001 to 10-05-2002. Hehas further stated th-at he had received information about 'theburning of a railway coach 'of Sab'armati Express near GodhraRailway Station on ~7-02-2002, resulting in death of s~vera! kar-sevaks and other passengers. According t:o Shri Kaushik, hedeputed Shri J.K. Bhatl.. the then SP, Western Railway to takeI 'over the investigafion of thiscase as the incident had occurred inthe railway's jurisdiction and Shri P.P. Agja, the then [GP, CIDCrime & Railways was' asked to' proceed for on the spot'supervision of the investigation. He has denied to have attendedtheLaw & Order meetings held by Chief Minister on or after 27-02-2002. As per St:JriKauahik, the j'nvestigatlon of Godhra carnagecase had' n~t been completed during his tenure and no chargesheet could be filed. He has also stated that by the time he left noconclusion could be drawn with regard tothe Godhra incident.. '

Shri Kaushik has further stated that he was posted asCommissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City on 10-05-2002 and hetook charge on 11-05-2002 and his immediate task was to restorepeace and communal harmony in the City. He has claimed to havevisited the relief camps, where the people from minority communitywere residing to hear their grievances. He had also set up SpecialCelie in CP office and ,told the victims not to go to the concernedpolice station, but to approach the Special Cells to get theircomplaint registered. Acoordlng 'to Shfl Kaushlk, as a rasult of

38 0

8/2/2019 Sit Volumeii 371-458

11/88

positive measures introduced by him, the Law & Order situation inthe city improved, He has denied the allegations levelled by Smt.Jakia Nasim .and has stated that the same are false and baselessand has claimed that Law & Order situation irnprovectafter he tookover and the same was evident for an unusually long term of fourand a half year_without any untoward incident: AS' regards theallegation of not filing any affidavit before the NanavatiCommiSSion, he has stated _that he had no personal knowledge~about the Godhra incident and as such a question of filing .anaffidavit, did not arise. In view of the aforesaid facts anddlscusslcns, the allegations are not established against Shri K.R.Kaushik.A-62:Shri Amitabh pathtk' formerly Spl. IGP, GandhinagarRa.nge,Gujarat., Shr-iAmitabh Pathak has stated that during October, 1999 to

August, 2002, he rernaine posted as IGP, Gandhinagar Range,which comprises three Districts namely,Gandhinagar, Mehsana &Sabarkantha.

Shri Amitabh,-Pathak has further slated that after theappointment of Nanavati Cornmlssion, affidavits wera.filed by therespecth.te Superintendents of Police, as they were primarilyresponsible for maintenance of Law &' Order In the respectiveDistricts. According to Shri Pathak" since Range IGP was asupervisory level link between SP and DGP, it was not oonsidered,necessary, to file an .affldavtt before the Commission. He hasdenied the allegation levelled by Smt. Ja~ja Nasim that heconspired with the Govt -,by not filing an affidavit and starved theCommission of necessary and relevant data on the ground, thatthe same are vague and baseless, inasmuch _as necessaryaffidavits about the personal knowledge in respect of variousincidents in respective Districts had been filed l:Iythe concernedSsP. As regards the other allegation, that many people in thejurisdiction of Gandhinagar Range Were kiiled in the riots, becauseof his deliberate and 'wilful act of connlvlnq wi'th the offenders, asIGP of the Range, Shri. Pathak has stated that the allegation is

/'f 381

8/2/2019 Sit Volumeii 371-458

12/88

false, absurd and without any ~asis inasmuch as he was notphysically present at the time, when the incidents took place andthere is no evidence in the complaint to show. his connivance withany of the offenders and no such allegations had ever beenlevelled by any. of the affected parties either in their complaintmade to the .police or an'y other authorities concerned with theinvestigation of the riot cases or .even before the NanavatiCommission. Surprisingly, no allegation qas been levelled againstShri A.S. Gehlaut, the then SP,.Mehsana, who was immediate incharge of the District under Shri Amitabh Pathak.

In view of the fact, that the allegations are vague and. general in nature and no evidence has come forward in support ofthe same, the allegations are not established.A-63:Shri Satishyerma. formerly DIG, Kutch-Bhuj Range.

Ms. Teesta Setalvad has stated that Shri Satish Verma is a. .witness and has been inadvertently listed as an accused. In viewbf.t~i~;no action i.scahed for in the matter.:. Opinion of Shri Raju Ramchandran, Amicus Curiae:-

IShri Raju RamCh~dran, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri

Gaurav Aggarwal, Adv cate had been appointed as AmicusCurlae by the Hon'ble 5 preme Court of India to assist the Courtin this matter, Shri Raju amchandran,. AC initially examined theInquiry Report submitted by the SIT to the Hon'ble Supreme Courtof India and submitted his observations on the findings of the SITon 20.01.2011,. to the Hon'bla Supreme Court of India, in threeparts i.e. C~art 'A', Chart 'B' & Chart 'C'.

The aforesaid. observations made by the L"d: Amicus Curiaewere considered by-the Hon'ble $pl. Bench of Supreme Court ofIndia on 15.03.2011, .when the following 'observations were made:-

"A copy of the -note s.ubmittftci by the learned amicus. curiee, has alre.ady b~en supplied to the Chairman,Spacla! Investigation Tham (SIT).

"382

8/2/2019 Sit Volumeii 371-458

13/88

Let the Chairman, SIT, look into tne observations madeby the teamedemicus curiae against each of the findings,given'by the SIT on tne.etteqetions made in the complaintand submit this report thereon. If considered necessary, itwill be open to the SIT to carry out futther investigationsin light- of. the observations made in the said note. Therepott shall 'be submitted by 25th April, 2011. List thecase on 27th Apr!;, 2011 at 3.00 p.m."Pursuant to the aforesaid order, SIT conducted further

investlqation u/s 173 '(8) Cr.PC in Gulberg Society Case. ~(Meghaninagar P.S. , CR No." 67/02) as suggested by Ld. AmicusCuriae' in his Observations submitted in the note' dated 20.01.2011to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

The recommendations made in Chart 'A' by the Ld, AmicusCuriae vis-a-vis .turther Investigation conducted is discussedbelow:-

Chart - 'A'

tht meeting..4. one of the prevent the riots. TheCa lnet Ministers, movement of Shri ModiIncudlng Late Haren and the Instructions given

were taking place to

"

ALLEGATIONS FINDINGS OBSERVATIONSI & IV A statement 1. None of the officers 1. It would be impossible!was made by Shri that attended the to get anyone present inNarendra Modi on' 27- meeting on 27-02- the meeting on 27-02-02-2002, in a meeting 2002,at 'his realderice confirmed

have2002 to speak againstthe Shri Mddi, especially the

instructing the senior allegedofficers to ?I.llow the made

statement bureaucracy and policeby Shri officials.

Hindus to give vent to Narendra Modi. 2. The othertheir anger. This is 2. The statement' ofcircumstances would alsolalso supported by Lat~ Shri R.B. Sreekurnar have to be taken intoHaren Pandya, is hearsay. account. There is nothing

3. Sanjiv Bhatt, the to show that the CMthen DCI (Security) intervened on 28-02-was not present in 20d2, when the riots

383

8/2/2019 Sit Volumeii 371-458

14/88

. _ .

I- , ,I

Pandya attended the by him on 28-02-2002,meeting on -27-02- would have been2002. Testimony of decisive to prove that heLate Haren Padya had taken all steps forbefore the Citizen's the protection of theTribunal is unreliable. mino'rities, but this

evidence is not there.Neither the CM nor hispersonal officials havestated what he did on 28-02-2002. Neither the foppolice nor bureaucratshave spoken about anydecisive action by theCM.3. It may not be correctto rule out the presenceof Sanjill Bhatt, IPS, DC(Int.) since Addl. OG (tnt)Shri G.C. Raiger was notav;;:(ilable. There is noreason for him to make awrong statement. He waswilling to make astatement if he wasprotected from legalrepercussions ofdisclosing whattranspired in the meeting.4: It is difficult to believethat when the eM cameback after the Godhratrip, no Minister waspresent at his residence.Hence, i t may not be

384

8/2/2019 Sit Volumeii 371-458

15/88

totally unbelievable. ShriHaren Pandya isunfortunately dead, butthe statements made by

I' Late Haren Pandya to. - Justice P.B. Sawant, ... . . . (Retd.) and Justice H.Suresh (Retd.) can be~ ~ used, even jf hisstatement is not been

I formally reproduced inwriting by the Citizen'sTribunal.5. It has also beenbrought out that anIenquiry was made from

I CM's office as to theII identity of the Ministeri who had deposed beforeI the Citizen's Tribunal. and'" that the State Intelligence

Bureau had verified theidentity as that of Shri~.Haren Pandya. This alsogives some corroborationto the fact that the CM's

I office was uncomfortablewith the disclosure madeby an unidentifiedMinister to the Citizen'sTribunal.6. The statement of 8hriR.B. Sreekumar cannotbe discarded as hearsay,in the light of Section 6 of

11J . 385

8/2/2019 Sit Volumeii 371-458

16/88

P L That Cabinet The SIT concludes 8. fhe positioning of 2IMinisters Shri l.k. that this was aCabinet Ministers havingIJadeja and Strri Ashok "controversial nothing to do with theBhatt were positioned decision" taken by the home portfoIIo in thein DGP's office and Govt. to place' two Office of DGP and theIiAhmedabad ,]contro; Room

1'j1

the Evidence Act.7. Another aspect is thefact that VHP GeneralSecretary Jaydeep Pateland Shri Modi were atGodhra on 27-02-2002.The statement otJaydeep Patel that he didnot meet Shri NarendraModi at Godhra does notinspire confidence. Thishas. to be examined asthe Mamlatdar would nothave handed over thedead bodies to a non-government person i.e.Jaydeep Patel until andunless somebody veryhigh told him to do so.

Police Controlity ministers in the OGP's Stateon 28- office and Room

02-2002. AhmedabadControlHowever,

respectivelyCity another circumstance

Room. which reflects that thereSITwas' a direct instruction

concludes that there from the Chief Minister.is nODevidence that Though Shri Jadeja saysthe 2 Ministers that he had gone to thepassed on any DGP's office oninstructions to the instructions of Shri

386

is

8/2/2019 Sit Volumeii 371-458

17/88

I police to deal with Gordhan Zadafia, MoSriots in a particular (Home) this' is highly

istanner. Therefore, unbelievable.the allegation is only obvious that the Chiefpartially proved as per Minister had positionedSIT. these '2 Ministers in

highly sensitive placeswhich should oat havebeen done. Intact, these2 Ministers could havetaken active steps todefuse the riots, but theydid nothing. whichspeaks volumes aboutthe decision to let theriots happen. It does notappear that these .2Ministers immediatelycalled th.e eM and toldhim about the situation at

and otherulber!;;lplaces.9. S~Tmerely relied uponthe statement of the

officers toolice

'.

conclude that these 2Ministers did not give anyinstructions to Policedepartment. but itappears highly unlikelythat 2 Cabinet Ministersof the Government 0Gujarat would have notgiven some kind 0 1directions when the eM

38 7

8/2/2019 Sit Volumeii 371-458

18/88

had directed them toremain present.10. It is obvious that the2 Ministers were fullyaware of the developingsituation' in GulbergSociety, Naroda Patiya

~ etc. in Ahmedabad City ..They were duty bound toconvey the situation tothe Chief Minister andwere require.d to doeverything possible tosave loss of lives. If thestand of the CM thatthese 2 Ministers werepositioned so as toeffectively control the lawand order situation iscorrect, then there wouldhave b4en a far quickeraction to control the riotsin Gulberg Society andNaroda Patiya atleast.11. No tangible actionseems to have beentaken by the police highups in the PoliceDepartment. namely

II

I!I

Ccrnrnisstoner of Police,to control the riots atGulberg Society. Gulberg.S09iety is not very faraway from the Office ofCommissioner of Police,

38 8

8/2/2019 Sit Volumeii 371-458

19/88

Ahmedabad.

'X L The allegation isThe SIT has come tol2. This is one of the~ha! Shri Narendra the conclusion that circumstances- which,Modi did not yisit the the action of Chief indicate that the Hon'blel

had not;'inisteriot affected areas of Minister appeared to Chiefbe dlacrirnl natory. taken enough steps to

ensure that riots inAhmedabad City wereimmediately controlled byhis direct intervention.

Ahmedabadimmediately, thoughhe visited Godhra onIthe day of the incident.

Xli. It is alleged that The SIT has come to 13. The observation of.Ion 01-03-2002, Shri the conclusion thet Shri Modi in a televisionNarendra Modi said in the reaction of the interview on 01-03-2002a television interview Chief Minister to clearly indIcates that

at Gulberg'there was an attempt toand Naroda justify the violence

that the reaction of the violenceHindus was due to t 1 1 1 8 Societylaction by the Muslims, Patiya was .not against the,which seems to justify serious. However, the community.~Ithe riot. SIT has concluded indicates

this would not be approach. The statement

minorityThis

a certain,

sufficient enough to made by Shri Modimake out a case cannot be seen inagainst 8hri Modi.. isolation. It 'has to be

seen in conjunction withother facts mentionedhereinaboveprovides

whichsufficient

ustification for a detailediiwestigationmatter.

in the

389~I

8/2/2019 Sit Volumeii 371-458

20/88

}> Observations madeby Ld. Amicus Curiae: It would be impossible to ge~ anyone present in themeeting on 27022002 to speak agai-:tst Shri Modi,especially the bureaucr.acyand pOlice,officials.

It may '1~ be correct to rule out,the preSence of SanjivBhatt, IPS, DC (lnt.) since Add!. -DG (Int.) Shri G. C. Raiger. .was not available. There is no reason for him to make awrong ataternerrt. Hewaswilling fa make.a statement if hewas protected from legal re'percussiof:1sof disclosing whattraryspired inthem~eting.

Result of further Investigation:Further investigation in this regard revealed that the

information about the burning _of a railway coach of Sabarma~iExpress" near God'hra Railway .Station was received by ShriNarendra Modi, Chu~f Minister on 27.02.2002 at about 0900 hrs'from Shri Ashok Narayan: the then ACS (Home). On receipt of theinformation, Shri Narendra Modi held a meeting at around 1030hrs with Shri Gordhan Zadafia, the then MaS (Home), Shri AshokNarayan, the then ACS' (Home), Shri K. Chakravarthi, the thenDGP, Shri P.C. Pande, the then CP, Ahmedabad City and otherpersonal staff of CM. Till then, no specific information wasavailable about the number of casualties and the inju~ed persons.In this meeting, Shri Narendra Modi emphasised that the culpritsresponsible for' the incident should be apprehended and riotallowed to escape. No minutes of the meeting were prepared.However, Shri Ashok Narayan had prepared a note on the basis ofinformation prcvlded by DGP for .CMand MoS (Home) to make astatement in the Assembly as the question relating, to the Godhraincident was likely to be raised in the Assembly, which was inSession. The Chief Minister had given directions that the stepsshould be taken' not to delay the medical help to survivingpassengers and also to impose curfew to avoid any untowardincrdent, Godhra being a communally sensitive place. The Chief

II3510

8/2/2019 Sit Volumeii 371-458

21/88

Minister had, also instructed that the senior officers and the extraforce, if required, must rea~[ Godhra without any delay.

Around 1200 hrs, C ief Minister attended the Assemblysession arid a call attention .motion relating to the Godhra incidenttabled by Shri Punjabhai nsh, MLA came up for dlscusaion at130.0hrs, but the' Ron'ble Member was not present in the House.DL Mayaben Kodnani, MLA from Naroda spoke on the said issue.Shri Gordhan Zad~fia" the th~i:l MoS (Home, madea statement inth,;, House based on the aforesaid note prepared by Shri Ashok~arayan, tbe then ACS (Home), Dur(ng zero hour, Shri NarendraModi made a statement that he-had discussed the matter with thethen Prime Minister Shri Atal Bihari Vajpaee and announced an- .ex-gratia payment of Rs. 2,00,0001- each to the next of kin ofthose killed in the Godhra incident and also ordered a High LevelInquiry into' the incident. All 'these facts were mentioned in the \I;:Assembly proceedings, as well as in the press release issued bythe Govt. of Gujarat on 27:02-2002. ,

Shri Gordhan Zadafia, the then MaS (Home) left for Godhraby road around 1400 hrs 'and reached there at about 1630 hrs..Sm-IAshok Bhatt, the then Health Minister, had already reachedGodhra around '1200 hrs. It may be. mentioned here that 27-02-2002-was a budget day in the Assembly arid after the completion- . ,of the budget speech by 8hri "Nitinbhal Patel, the then FinanceMinister, the Assembly prpceedings were over at about 1500 hrs.Shri Narendra Modi left for Ahmedabad airport around 1530 hrs forhis onward journey to Vadodaral Godhra. Shri Narendra Modireached Ahmedabad airport at 1600 hrs and left for Vadodara byGovt. aircraft. The Chief Minister reached Vadodara at about 1630hrs and then proceeded to Godhra by helicopter immediately,where he reached around .1645_hrs. He was accompanied by ShriAnil Mukim, the then Acfdl, .PS to CM and .Shr,iJagdish Thakker,PRO to CM. According to the press release issued bythe Govt. ofGujarat on 27-02-2002, CM visited the scene of occurrence atGodhra Railway Station and then went " t o . Civil Hospital and saw

j 391

8/2/2019 Sit Volumeii 371-458

22/88

the injured admitted there, Thereafter, he went to Collectorate andheld mee~ing with the Mini~ters present there namely Shri AshokBhatt, Shri Gordhan Zadafia, Shri Bhupendra Lakhawala, ShriPrabhatsinh Chauhan (all Ministers in the State Go\l1.) ShriBbupendtaslnqh Sotanki, the then Member, Lok-Sabha fromGodhra, ColIec~~. & ~jstrict Magistrate, Godhra, Police Officersand Railway Officers. The Chief Min"ister had also met the pressbri.eflXth~reafter. As per media reportsSl;)ri Narendra Modi saidthe Govt, would ensure the maintenance of peace in the State andthe GO\l1.,.ould not be lacking in discharge of its duty. He alsosaid that tragedy was ularallel in the history of Gujarat andassured the people that cui rits would be punlstied. At no point oftim~, Shri J.aydeep Patel, IHP leader, who was at Godhra on thatday, had met him. The Chief Minister left Godhra by road around1945 hrs (after the sunset) bnd reached Vadodara airport at about2130 hrs Shri Narendra Modi left for Ahmedabad by Govt. aircraftat 2130 hrs and reached his official residence at Gandhlnaqar atabout 2230 hrs.

Investiga"tion has further revealed that a law & order meetingwas heldby Chief Minister at his residence aound 23001hrs, whichwa.::.attended by Smt. Swarna Kanta Varma, the then acting ChiefSecretary, Shri Ashok Narayan, the then ACS (Home); Dr. P.K.Mishra, the then Principal Secretary -to CM, Shri Anil Mukim thethen Add], PS to CM,. Shri K. Chakravarthi, the then DGP, ShriP.C. Pande, the then CP, Ahmedabad City, SHri K, Nityanandam,the then Secretary (Horne) and Shri Prakash S. Shah, the thenAdd!. Secretary (Law & order). Shri G.C, Raiger, the then Add!. DG(Int.), who was on casual ,leave and had returned to Ahmedabadon .27-02-2002' evening, had not attended the ~ame. However,Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, the then Deputy Commissioner of Intelligence(Security) .has claimed to have attended the s-aid meeting at theinstance of DGP.

392

8/2/2019 Sit Volumeii 371-458

23/88

I 'I'

All the aforesaid officlals have been re-examined and their. .statements recorded 'u/s 161 Cr.P,C ..Their deposition in brief isgiven below:-(i) According to Smt. Swarna Kanta Varma', the then actingChief Secretary, she was present in the said meetin-g, out she,cannot recollect, as..1fi.whether any Minister or other police/Govt.officials (besides the indivIduals indicated 'above) were presentthere. On being shown the photograph of Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, she

, .has stated that she can not recollect having met or seen him inthis meeting or in any meeting during 'the period of her charge asChief Secretary, Smt. Swarna Kanta Varma has stated that ChiefMinister had said in the' aforesaid meetlnq that the Godhra incidentwas very unfortunate and that it should be handled with a firmhand. However, she has denled that there was any mention byChief Minister of balancing ~cti~n against Hindus and Muslims orMuslims be taught a lesson or Hindus be allowed .to vent theiranger.(ii) Shri Ashok Narayan, the then AC'S (Home) has stated thatShri Sanjiv Bhatt, the then DCI (Security) did' not attend the saidmeeting on 27-02-2002. He has further stated that .no fll\i.nisterwaspresent in the said meeting. He + also stated th.at DGP gavesequence of"~vents of Godhra inCid~nt.,.possible repercussions ofthe same and also about hls requir ment o f additional forces. Hehas denied any utterances by Chief Minister to the effect that the. 'police approach of balancing action against Hindus; and Muslimswould not work any more, Muslims should be taught a lesson and. .that Hindus should be allowed to vent their feelings/anger. Hehas,however, stated that Chief Minister did say that the people wereoutraged by the Godhra incident and therefore, effective stepsshould be taken to control the communal riots.(iii) Shri P.K. Mishra, the then Principal Secretary to CM hascategorically denied the presence of Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, the thenDCI (Security) in the meeting of 27-02-2002. He has 'further deniedthe.prasence of any politicians in the said meeting. As regards the

i 393

8/2/2019 Sit Volumeii 371-458

24/88

observation' allegedly made by CM that for, too long the GujaratPolice had Qsen f9!lowlng the prlnclp!e of balancing actionsagainst the Hindus and Muslims.whlla dealing with the communalriots in Gujarat; the situation warranted that"the Mustirns be t~t,lghta lesson to ensure that auch incidents dO:.not recur arid that the'emotions were running very high am.ongstthe 'Hindus,and they beallowed to vent"their anger, Shri Mishra has 'stated that it was nottrue that Chief Minister talked in these terms. He has further statedthat in this meeting, officials -of the H0m~ 'Department and policeoffioers apprised CM about the actio~alreadY taken to prevent anyuntoward. incldent in view ofthe eme ging sltuatlon and Ihe bandhcall. He has also stated that CM riefed the officials about hisGodhra visit and impressed. upon th m to' take all possible 'stepsincluding preventive arrests to avoid any untoward mctdent.(iy) Shrl 'K. Chakravarthl, the then DGP' has statedthat Shri, . .G.C. Raiger, the then Addl. DG (Tnt.)was on casual leave on 27-02-2002, and therefore, he did not attend the' said meeting. Hedoes not recollect, as to whether Shri Raig~r contacted him overphone on 27-02-2002 evening and informed him about his arrivalat Ahmedabad. However, he has categorically stated that ShriSanjiv Bhatt didnot .attertd the said meeting on 27-02~2002 nightat CM's residence and no such instructio[is were 'given" by ChiefMinister. Shri'- Chakravarthi has added that in case Shri G.C,Raiger was available at Ahmedabad, he would have giveninstructions to him toattend this meeting through the State ControlRoom rather than askir:19Shri S'anjiv Bhatt to attend, According toShri Chakravarthi, Shri D.P. Mathur, the then IGP (Admn &Security) was also available and could have been called in thesaid meeting instead o f calling a junior officer o f .SP level (ShriSanjiv Bhatt). Shri 'Chakravarthi has further stated that as per hisrecollection, none of the Ministers/ polltlcians. had attended thesaid meeting on 27-02-2092.Shri Chakravarthi has also stated tohave briefed CM about the bandobast made by him in the wake ofthebandh call given by VHPon 28-~2-2002, and also about theaddltlcnal requirement cif foroes. Shri Chakravarthi had also

394

t!.

I ,. jI :

8/2/2019 Sit Volumeii 371-458

25/88

'1

I'

II.

informed CM about the appeal made by him to theqer.eral publicon Door-Darahan/All Indla Radio to maintai,n peace. ,....$ ~er SmiChakravarthl. CN! had said that the Godhn~_Incident 'was .veryserious and bound to affect the 'public at I~rge and therefore,adequate' arrangementssha"uld. be rnaqe. S.hrrChakravarthi hasstated that eM had' also spoken about' ~he Gqvt. decision totransport dead bodi~s of Godhra victims to Ahmedabad City byroad and to keep them in -Sola Civil Hospital. which was thenlocated on the outskirts of Ahmedabad City. Accordipg to ShriChakravarthi, this decision was not opposed by anyone in themeeting, as a considerable number of victims belonged toAhmedabad and nearby Pla.ces Re~arding the allegation againstChief Minister for speaking in the terms that for too long theGujarat Police had been following the principle of balancing theaction against the Hindus and Muslims etc. and the Hindus beallowed to vent their anger, Shri Chakravarthi has denied any suchutterances by Chief Minister in the meeting. He.also denied havingspoken to Shri R:S, Sreekumar, the then Add!. DG (Arms Unit) inthis regard.(v) Sliri P.C. Pande, ,the then Commissioner of Police,Ahmedabad City has denied the presence of Shri' Sanjiv Bhatt inlaw & order meeting called by Chief Mil)ister,on 27-02-2002 night.He has furth"er stated that the meeting lasted for 15-20' minutes, ,and that the discussions centred around maintenance Of Law &order in view of the bandh call for .the- next day, its likelyrepercussions and availability of forces. As r.e~ardsthe allegationsagainst Chief Minister about having said' that' for too long theGujarat Police had been following the principle of balancing theactions against Hindus and Muslims etc. etc, and the Hindus beallowed to vent th~ir anger, Shri Pande has categorically statedthat no such instructions to allow' any:"reedom to any law breakerwere given by: Chief Minister. He has out rightly denied thepresence of any Minister or S)1ri Sanjiv Bhatt, the then DCI(Security) in the said' meeting. ,Regarding the Govt. decision totransport the dead bodies of Godhra victims to Ahmedabad, Shri

395

8/2/2019 Sit Volumeii 371-458

26/88

,, ., .

1-,I

Pande has stated that he does not recollect the exact talks, which. .took place in the said meeting, but the sum and substance of thediscusaions was that the' 'dead bodies were being brought toAhmedabad City with a view to facilitate the relatives of thedeceased persons to identify and claim the same.

(vi) Shri Anil..Mukim, lAS, the then Add!. ~S to eM has statedthat he attended the said meeting for some time and then left aftertaking permission from Shrf- P.K. Mishr~, lAS (Retd.) the thenPrincipal Secretary to CM. He has further stated that as long as hewas present in the meeting, gen~ral dlscuselcns were heldregarding the GO.dhfs incident and. necessary .pr.eventivemeasures required to 'be taken 'unde; the clreurnstances we'realsodiscussed. He has out rightly denied any utterances/instructionsby eM about Muslims being taught a lesson and the Hindus beingallowed to vent their anger; in his presence. He. has denied thepresence of Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, the then DCI (Security) in the saidmeeting. He has also denied the presence of any Minister orpoliticlan in the meeting.(viii) Shri K. Nityanandam, the- t,hen.Secretary (Horne) hasstated that- he attended the law & order meeting called by the. ,Chief Minister at his residence on 27-02-2002, at about 2300 hrs.He has furthe~,stated that the deliberations in the meeting mainlyrevolved around the Law: & order situation post Godhra trainincident and efforts to.handle future Law & order problems in viewof the bandh callan 28-02-2002. He has-denied the presence ofany Minister or Shri Sanjiv Bhatt in the said meeting. He has alsodenied any such alleged observations made' by the Chief Mini~terabout Muslims being taught a lesson etc.. etc. and the Hindus beallowed to ve";t their anger. According to. Shri K. Nltyanandam, hedoes not recollect Shri Sanjiv Bhatt being present in any law &order meetings called by the Chief Milster as IGP/Addl: DGP rankoffioer were available in the State Int lligence Bureau .to presentthe issues relating to intelligence.

I 396

8/2/2019 Sit Volumeii 371-458

27/88

,II~r"

I

(lx) Shri Prakash S. Shah, the then Addl, Secretary (Law &order) has confirmed to have attended the, Law & order meetingcalled by the Chief Minister at his residence on 27~02-20oinight.He has further stated that the Chief Minister gave an account ofGodhra incident, while 'Shri Chakravarthi and Shri Pande briefedeM about the possible repercussions of Godhra incident, aboutthe arrangements- and bandobast m~de by them and also aboutthe deployment of forces, According- ~o 'Shri Shah, the ChiefMinister insiructed: all the officers that communal peace andharmony be maintained at all costs and all possible steps be takento control the possible c0m.munal.flare up. He has' denied thepresence of any Minister or Shri Sanjiv Bhatt in the said meeting.He has further slated that the, Chief Minister did not say anythingon the lines of the police approach of balancing action againstHindus and Muslims and also that the Hindus should. be' aUowedtovent their anger.(x) Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, the then DCI (Security) stated that hereceived intelligence inputs on 27-02-2002, regarding thedespatch of dead bodies from Godhra J O Ahmedabad under policeescort, the State supported bandh cajll and the intention of theSangh Parivar activists to parade the ~ead bodies i~'11';eorm' offu.~eral prOCeS$i~nin communally sentitive ~r~as.of Ah.medab9dCity. He has claimed to have attended a late night. meeting of 27-02-2002 called by the Chief Minister at his residence about whichhe was intimated by State IB Control Room and Stat.ePoliceControl Room that Shri K. Chakravarthi, the then DGP wanted himto accompany the latter in the, said meeting.: 'Significantly, atenquiry stage Shri Sanjiv Bhatt hini.self hasadrriltted in his signedstatement that Shri G.C. Raiger, the then Add!. DG (lnt.) was oncasual leave till 28.02.2002, but had curtaifed his leave and cameback to Ahmedabad on 27.02.2002 evening, This fact has beenconfirmed by Shri G.C, Raiger, the then Addl, DG (In!;), who hasstated to have called DGP and informed about his availability fromthe evening of 27.02.2002. Moreover, Shri P_B. Upadhyay, thethen DCI (Communal), -the concerned officer dealing with the

I'I II"397

8/2/2019 Sit Volumeii 371-458

28/88

communal subject has also stated to have curtailed his casualleave on 27.02.2002 and was .avallable in the ottu, .. H.. alsostated that he had accompanied Shri K. Chakravarthi in the latter's.car from DGP's office to' CM's resjden~e' and .cl~imed that .lie. .attended the said meeting, which was also 'attended by In chargeChief Secretary Smt.. Swarna Kanta Varma, ACS (Ho~e) ShriAshok Narayan; Shir Ar'lil Mukim, the then Add!. PS to eM, ShriP.C. F'ande, the then C~, Ah~'datiad City arid' Shri K.Nityanandam, the then Secretary (H me). However, .he is unableto recollect, as to whether Shri P. . Mis~_ra,the then PrincipalSecretary to CM was present in the s id meeting or not. Shri Bhatthas further stated that to the best of his recollection I nopolitician/Minister was present in the said meeting. He has alsostated that Shri G.C. Raiger, the then Add!. DG_(lnt) didnof attendthe said meeting being 'on casual leave and. that he was notaware, as to whether Shri Raiger'had returned to Ahmedabad on27-0:;;!-2002 evening. He has denied to have contacted Shri Raigeron 27-02-2002 evening, at his residence. shd Sanjiv Bhatt hasclaimed that he used' to attend the intelligence related meetingscalled by the Chief Minister. As per Shri Bhatt, this ml';'letingwasessentially a Law & order review meeting. and the main issuesO1scussedduring the said meeting revolved around the bandh callgiven by VHP and ruling BJP as well the decision to bring thedead bodies of Godhra victims to Ahmedabad. Shri Sanjiv Bhatt,has also stated that Shri p.C. Pande, the then CP, AhmedabadCity had strongly opposed the Govt. declsfori for the transportationof dead bodies of Godhra victims to Ahmedabad as the same waslikely to lead to serious communal riots in Ahmedabad City andthese views were supported I:?yShri K Chakravarthi, the thenDGP. According to Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, Shri' Chakravarthi hadconveyed to CM that the available resources of Gujarat Policewere over stretched to cope with the +aw& order situation that waslikely to arise in the wake of bandh call given by the VHP on thenext day and had expressed his inability to supplement themanpower resources of CP, Ahmedabad City. Shri Sanjiv Bhatt

398

, :

8/2/2019 Sit Volumeii 371-458

29/88

, ,l~.~,";'"~I ,

has stated that as per his reCOllect

I,, there was no meaningful

contribution from Shri K, Nityanand,a ,the then Secretary (Home),Shri Ashok Narayan, the then AC (Horne) and Srnt.: SWarna

, 'Kanta Varma, the then acting Chie Secretary" Shri Sanjiv Bhatthas further stated that DGP and P, Ahmedabad City tried toimpress upon the Chief Minister that the bandh call' given byVHPon 28-02-2002, which was supported by the ruling party, BJP wasnot a good idea, as far as the law & order situation of the Statewas concerned but the Chief Ministe'r'"did', not seem to beconvinced by their arguments and 'stafeo that'the incident likeburning of kar,-sevaks at GOdh'racould not b'e tolerated, Accordingto Shri Bhatt, eM impressed upon the gathering as below:-

"That for too long the Gujarat police bed been followingthe principie of balancing the actions agains~ the Hindusand Muslims while dealing with the communal riots inGujarat. This time the situation warranted that theMuslims be taught a lesson to ensure that suchincidents do not recur ever again. The Chief MinisterShri Narendra Modi expressed the view that theemotions were running very high amongst the Hindusand it was imaeretive that they be allowed to vent outtheir anger",According to Shri Sanjiv 8ha't~, no minutes of the meeting

were prepared by him or DGP, but t'!e had no knoWledge as towhether any minutes were kept by CM's office .or HomeDepartment. ~He also claimed of making a mention of the saidmeeting in his movement diary for February, 2.002, Shri Sanjiv'Bhatt has further stated that he expressed his opjnion against thedecision of BJP to support the baridh call given by VHP and alsothe decision of the administration to bring the dead bodies of thevictims from Godhra to Ahmedabad City, He also stated that heexpressed a view that the taking out of the f.unera( procession ofthe victims in the respectlve areas would 'lead to major communalviolence inAhmedabad City and other communally sensitive areasacross the State,

Shri Sanjiv Bhatt stated that he took leave thereafter fromShri K. Chakravarthi, the then DGP" and returned to State IBoffice

f 399"

8/2/2019 Sit Volumeii 371-458

30/88

. .

in 0rder to send alert mesaaqes and, instructions to the concernedpolice/inteiligenoe units. Subsequent to tl;le aforesaid meeting atCM's residence, Shrl 8hatt h a s .elalmed -to h~ve issued severalmessages to the Police units as ':'Veil'as the. field units of the IBwith respect to the developing situation including the possibility ofwide spread communal violence during the Gujarat bandh andwherein, he reitar-ate~to different C,sp and ~sP to take all possiblemeasures to prevent untoward incidents in their respectivejurisdiction, Surprisin9ly, h informed everyone about it but did notinform his own Head of the Department i.e. Shri G.C. Raiger,whom he had allegedly represented in the meeting and whosepresent in the station was very much in jus knowledge. He hasdenied to have contacted Shri ,C;.C.Raiger over phone in the nightof 27-02-2002 and has stated that he 'briefed Shri Raiger about thesaid meeting and the deliberations that had-taken place, when hehad attended office' on the next day, l.e, 28-02-2002 mornlnq, at i;about 1000 hrs. which has been denied _by Shri Raiger.I .Interestingly, the call details of Govt. mobile phone of Shri SanjivBhatt show that he was at Ahmedabad till 1057 hrs on 28.02.2002.He has further claimed that the .details of the discussions heldduring the said meeting were not mentioned in any of fhe officialc~frespondence/reports as he had attended the said meeting inthe capacity of an Intelligence Officer. Further, Shri Sanjiv Bhatthas claimed that the reports had started comlnq in the office-of the

- .State IB regarding the preparations made by the' cadres of SanghParivar to carry out strict enforcement of the bandh call given bythem on 28-02-2002, and that sames.hould be available in therecords of State lB. Shri Sanjiv Bhatt has also claimed to haveattended the second meeting at CM's residence on 28-02-2002 at. . .about 1030 hrs along with Shri G.C. Raiger, the then Addl. DG(lnt.), in which the' deployment of manpower during the Gujaratbandh was discussed to monitor the developing slteraticn and thatthis meeting was also attended by 8hri K. Chakravarthi, the thenDGP, Shri Anil Muklrn, the then Add!. PS to eM, Late Ashok Bhatt,the then Health Mlnlster and SMri I.K. .Jadeja, the then Urbari

400

8/2/2019 Sit Volumeii 371-458

31/88

)flI'I~.! i ' .,!!J~

Development Minister. Shri Bhatt has fur:ther stated that on theconclusion of the said meeting, the Chief Minister had ,instruCtedDGP that Late Ashok Bhatt and Shri I.K. Jadeja would be assistingthe police in monitoring the situation and that all necessaryassistance must be rendered to the Ministers. Shri Sanjiv Bhatthas also stated that eM had not specifically instructed as to howthe Ministers would assist the police. Further, according to Shri.Sanji~ Bhatt, the tssue relating, to the requisitioning of the Armywas also discussEld on the .basis of the sl>lggestionsgiven by DGPand Addl. DG (Int.), but the Chief Minister seemed to be reluctantand was of the view that they should wait and watch, as to how thesituation developed and not 'rush fqr the requisitioning of Army.

According to Shri Bhatt, he returned to the Police Bhavanand went to his chamber on the second floor, but shortly thereafterwent to DGP's chamber around 11 D O' hrs to obtain his signaturefor requl~itioning additional forces and found Late Ashok Bhatt andShri I,K, Jadeja seated in his chamber, where' everyone took tea.Shri Sanjiv Shatt has further stated that sometime later, he visited, 'State Control Room' on' the first floor of Police Bhavan to collectsome documents and saw Shri I.K: .Iadeja and his staff members.occupying the chamber of Dy.SP, State Control Roonfl, Finding thisarrangement to be little odd and Inconvenient, with the permissionof the DGP:he shifted Shri Jadeja a'nd his staff to the chamber ofShri P.C. Thakur, the then ,IGP, who was on leave. Later duringthe day, Shri Sanjiv Bhatt came to know that Shri .Jadeja: had leftthe Police Shavano However, as per Shri Sa.njiv Bhatt, Shri Jadejadid not interfere with the w0rking of State Police Control Room on28-02-2002, or thereafter. Shri Sanjiv Bhatt has also claimed thathe came to know from his staff later that Late Ashok Bhatt wasstationed inAhmedabad City Police Control Room on 28-02-2002.:

On bejng questioned, as to' whether ,deliberations in CM'smeeting or the developments in the Control Rooms werementioned by him in any of the reports submitted to the 'seniorofficers at any stage, Shri Sanjiv 1hatt has claime,dthat he had

~ .. .I 401

8/2/2019 Sit Volumeii 371-458

32/88

attended the said meeting al6ng,with the DGP and Addl. DG (Int.)as a Staff Officer and as such there was no necessity to submitany report to them, Shri Sanjiv Bhatt has claimed to have receivedinformation about a mob attack on Gulberg Society around 1130.hrs on 28-02-2002, and he had deputed PI Shri Bharwad ofAhmedabad RegionCjI Office located in Meghaninag~r to go toGulberg Society,- fb report on the developing situation ,and'Tnformthe State IB, According to Shri Bhatt, he had conveyed thesedevelopments to DGP, and Add!. DG (Int.) "personally, In view oftnetact that Late Ahesan .Jafrl,Ex-MP was r~siding in the GulbergSociety, he (Sanjiv Bhatt) telephonically conveyed the detailsabout the developing situation to- the Chief Minister directly,However, he does not recollect, as to Whether he had spoken tothe Chief Minister over landline or over the mobile phone of Shri. '.,O.p, Singh, PA to eM, Shri Sanjiv Bhatt has stated that heattended another meeting at CM's residence on 28.022002afternoon for the assessmerit of 'the ongolng situation, which wasattended to by ACS (Home), DGI?,Addl. DG (Int.), and Secret~ry(Home), in which the C~ief rv:inister had' as~e,edto send a formatrequisition to Govt, of, India for deployment of ',AFmy, He hasclaimed that he briefed the Chief Minister -about the ongoingdevelopments at Gulberg Society and also about th~ threat to thelife of Late Ahesan Jafri and other residents of the GulberqSociety. Shri Sanjiv Bhatt has gone 1 0 the extent of claiming thatthe Chief Minister took him aside aftLr the meeting and informedhim that he .had learnt that Late Ahejan Jafri had opened fi're onHindus during, earli~r _cqmmunal rior' A~C~rdil1g to Shri ~anji~Bhatt, the Chief Minister asked him to, 'dig out. all the factspertaining to earlier instances, wherein Late Ahesan .Jafri .hadopened fire'during the past communal riots, Shci Bhatt claimed thathe conveyed these facts to Shri G,C. Raiger, the then' Addl.' DG(Int.). However, Shri Bhatt has stated that he could notcheck/collect this information as he remained busy with certainurgent matters connected with the riots, Shri Sanjiv Bhatt hasdenied having submitted any report in this regard to his

402

8/2/2019 Sit Volumeii 371-458

33/88

department and claimed that he had attended this meeting as aStaff Offlcer to the DGP or Add!. DG ,(Inn, whicl. ,~" .,._.: _ 1&there was no post of Staff Officer to Add!. DG (Int.).. .

On being questio~ed, as to why did he not appear as awitness in response to a public notice issued by SIT on 11-03-2008, he claimep.jhat he did not disclose tne same to- anyone,asit would not have, been appropriate on his part, :t6, divuige anyinformation that he was privy-to as an InteUig,?l:1ceOfficer unlesshe was under a legal obligation to do so. tie has also stated thathe did not file any affidavit or appeared before any commission orany other body enquiring into th~' communal riots of 2002,because he was not asked by the G6vt. of Gujarat, DGP or Add!.DG (Int.) to do so. He has denied ~nOWledge as to whether thealleged instructions giv,en by the Chi1f Minister were passed on tothe field units by any of the officers, who had atterided the meetingon 27-02-2002. The stand taken by Shri Sanjiv ."Bhatt is, notacceptable on account" of the fact that firstly it was es:sentially alaw & order meeting, in which many civilian' officers w~re presentand there was nothing secret .about it. Furthermore, Shri Bhatt hasvarious opportunities and legal obligations to disclose these facts,

" if true, firstly to Shri R.B. Sreekumar, the then Add!. qG (Int.), whohad asked him to provide any oral and documentary relevant factto be-included in his affidavit relating to riots incidents on behalf ofState IB required' to be filed before, "Nanavati' Cornrnlssjon.Secondly, Nanavati Commission a legally constituted. body underCommission of Inquiry Act had issued a public notice calling uponanyone having knowl,edge about the incident of issues involvedbefore it, to file an affidavit and furnish information, but Shri SanjivB~att did not file any. affidavit. Thirdly, SIT, legally. constituted bythe Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had also issued a publicnotice on 11.04.2008 calling upon the people to come forward andgive information relating' to the riots, bu~Shri Sanjiv Bhattconveniently did not come forward. Fourthly, another opportunitywas given to him in November, 2009, to make a statement duringthe course of inquiry ordered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

I 403

8/2/2019 Sit Volumeii 371-458

34/88

.' ,india, but Shri Sanjiv Bhatt took the ptaa. that it would not beprofessionally appropriate on his part to divulge the exact nature'of. , . . -discussion that took pla?e during the said meeting:' u'nless he wasduty bound to,disclose the same under legalobligatio,n.

Shri Sanjiv Bhatt. on his own and without beingsummoned appeared before the to on 25-03-2011,' i.e. .two daysafter ~he recording of his statemejn, along with one constablenamed Shri K.D. Panth ano .reques ed that. his (Bhatt's) furtherstatement should be recorded. In his urthe~rstat~me~t, Shri Sanjiv,Bhatt mentioned the names of two sststant Intellig,ence Officers(AIDs) namely, Shri Shailesh Raval and Shri K.D':: Panth, whoused to accompany him.tomost of the meetinqs. H~. has f.urtherstated that subsequent to the recording of his statemeiit on 21 &22-03.2011, he.had been able to recollecUhat Shri K.D. Panth hadfollowed him to CM's residence with the files 'in his staff car fromDGP's office, whereas he himself had accompanied DGP Shri K.Chakravarthi in the latter's staff car. He has also stated that ShriK.D. Panth returned with him in his car to Police Shavan andremained in the office iill late in the 'night and attendeoto urg.entoffi_cial wcrk. .Shri Sanji,:, Bhatt also informed that lren Shri~arachand Yadav.rwas his driver who is presently attadhed to ShriV.1

8/2/2019 Sit Volumeii 371-458

35/88

the earlier inquiry, three partlc;pant, t , this meeting 'n"m~'y ShriNityanandam,- Shri Anil Muktm and Smt. $warna Kanta Vermawere not asked this question while thr e others nam~IYShri AshokNarayan, Shri P. C. Pande and Shrl P. K. Mishra ha~ stated jhatthey did not recollect. S'hri P. S. Shah had, not been examinedduring the inquiry. However, Shri K. Chakravarthi had stated at~ ,that stage also that Shri Bhatt was not present in this meeting.They have also confirmed that noMinister/Politician was present inthe said meeting. .~

Smt. Swarna Kanta Varma, being ACS (Health & FamilyDeptt.) and the then actinq Chief Secretary was never posted inthe Home Department and therefore, she did not know Shri SanjivBhatt, the then DCI (Security). On being shown the photograph ofShri Sanjiv Bhatt, she has stated that she can not recollect havingever met or seen him in any meeting. According to Smt. SwarnaKanta Varma, the Chief Minister had stated in the said meetingthat incident in Godhra was very unfortunate and it should be dealtwith a heavy hand. She also does .not recollect having seen anyCabinet Minister in the said meeting. All the participants of then;eeting held on 27-02-2002 night, have denied that CM haduttered any words on the lines that Gujarat Police! had beenfollowing the principle of balancing the actions against the Hindusand Muslims;-while dealing with the communal riots in Gujarat andthat the situation warranted that Musllms be taught a ,lesson toensure that such incident do not r~cur' ever again and that theemotions were running very high arnonqst the Hindus and they beallowed to vent their anger.

There is unanimity amongst all the participants of the said.meeting that no Minister/politician was present in'the meeting. .ShriBhatt has contended that Shri. P_C, Pande, the then CP,Ahmedabad City had strongly opposed the'Government's decisionregarding transportation of the dead bodies,to Ahmedabad City asthe same was likely to lead to comr.nunal riots and that his views. .were supported !'y Shri K. Chakravarthi, the then DGP. His version

405

8/2/2019 Sit Volumeii 371-458

36/88

stands contradicted by Shri P,C. Pande, the themCP, AhmedabadCity, who had stated that the sum and the substance of themeeting was that _the dead bodies wese being brought toAhmedabad City' with a view to facilitate the relatives of thedeceased to identify and claim the same.

Shri K, CI=\-akravarthi,the then DGP has clearly stated -that .the declslon of the Govt. to bring the dead bodies of Godhravictims at Ahm~dabad City, -was not oppojsed by anyone on theground that a large number of victims belonged to Ahmedabadand nearby places, ~hich were' easily 'approachable fromAhmedabad, This would go to show that Shri Sanjiv Bhatt wasgiving an imaginary account- of the deliberations of the meetingand did not know as to what exactly transpired there. Further, ithas bean contended by Shri Sanjiv Bhatt that both DGP and CP,Ahmedabad City had tried to impress upon the Chief Minister thatthe bandh call given by the VHP on 28-02-2002, which wassupported by the ruling party BJP was not a good idea as far asthe Law &. order situation of the State was concerned and that theChief Minister was not convinced by -thelr arguments .. In thisregard, Shri K. Chakr~varthi, the then- DGP has stated that in thenight of 27-02-2002, he did not know that the bandh- dall given bythe VHP was supported by the ruling party sjp and as such therewas no question of any such opposition by him..Sl']ri P,C. Pandehas also stated that on 27-02-2002, he did not know that' thebandh was supported by the BJP and cam,e to know about it onlyon 28-02-2002, through newspaper reports. All the participants ofthe meeting have stated that the Chief Minister had expressed theapprehension that the Godhra incident was very 'serious andbound to affect the public at large, as a result of yvhich there couldbe repercussions and therefore, adequate bandobast was. needed. .' .to avoid any untoward incident.

Shri Sanjiv Bhatt has' claimed that he mentioned the fact ofhaving attended the said meeting on 27-02-2002 night in hismovement diary. However, the State IB has reported that nosuch

. i' ,f' .. ' 406

8/2/2019 Sit Volumeii 371-458

37/88

I'

'1'

diary was being submitted ~y Shri Sanjiv Bhatt. Shri G.C. Raiger,the then Add!. DG (Int.) has stated th... "I~' _ . ' =ystemof submitting any monthly movement diary by r-' ~! au,.. ",aI ShriSanjiv Bhatt had never submitted any such diary. Shri Sanjiv Bhatthave claimed to have briefed Shrl G.C. Reiger, the. then Add!. DG- . '.(Int.) on 28:02,2002. at about 1000 hts about-the alleged meetingheld by the Chief Mini~ter and also 'about the illegal instructionsgiven by the latter. This .claim is absolutely false and iscontradicted f-romthe call detail records aMhe .Gavt. mobile. phoneno. 9825049398 of Shri San)iv Bhatt, which show that ~helocationof Shri Sanjiv Bhatt was at Memnagar, Ahmedabad till 10:57:43hrs on 28.02.2002. Further, Shri Sanjiv Bhatt has claimed that hedid not submit any report about the 'meeting held by the ChiefMinister at his residence on 27.02,2002 night. as he attended themeeting as a Staff Officer to DGPI Ad.dl..D.G(Int.). This contentionputforward by Shri Sanjiv Bhatt is absurd because there was. nopost of Staff Officer to Addl DG (Int.) and Shri K. Chakravarthi hasdenied thatShri Sanjiv Bhatt, was posted as Staff Officer to DGP,as the Staff Officer was . o f ' the ra;,~ of Dy. $P and not SP. ShriSanjiv Bhatt has contended that he did not file affidavit norappeared as a witness before the SIT in response to a public. ,notice issued by the SIT, as itwould not have beer.l appropriate' onhis part to divulge any information that h e was .privy to as' anintelligence of_flcerunless he was under a'lega!.oblig~tion to do so.In this connection, it would not be out of place to mention here thatassuming for the time being that Shri SanjiY Bhatt attended thealleged meeting of 27.02,2002, the s~me was essentially a law &order meeting attended by the various offlclals ot State'Administr.ation and therefore the qu stion .of oath of secrecy orapplication of the Official Secrets A t does not arise because itwas neither a secret meeting nor would the revelation of thecontents of the said meeting jeopardized the public interest.ShriSanjiv Bhatt has used the weapon of the Official' Secre.~sAct onlyas a pretext with a view to justify a long delay of nine years andjust because an official of the ,intelligence unit attended a law &

. III

f 407

8/2/2019 Sit Volumeii 371-458

38/88

order meeting, 'the same does not became a secret meeting forwhich a pr,ivilege of s~crecy, is being claimed by Shri Sa,njiv Bhatt.In any case~ Nanavati Commis'sionand SIT have been set upunder the provlsions of law of the land and all the citizens/ officialsare legally bound to divulge the information available with themwhich are relevant to the terms of reference! crimes of' theCommission beil19 investigation by SIT. '.'

In view of this, the explanation' put forward' by Shri Sanjiv- ~ .Bhatt does not hold, good.. Shi"i Sanjiv Bhatt had gone to theextent of say.ing that h~ learpt from the other staff that I,-ateAshokBhatt was -statloned in Ahmedabil City Police Coritro] Room,WhiC,hhas.0~ valu~, whats~ever, be ng,.the.hearsay ~Vide.nc.~.Theclaim of Shn SanJlv Bhattthat he had opposed tlie bringing ofdead bodies to Ahmedabad from odhra, 'is belied from the factthat all the participants of the said meeting have categoricallystated trat. Shri Sanjiv Bhatt did not attend ,the said rneetinq.

Shri Sanjiv B~hatt' has specifically claimed that he hadaccompanied theDGP Shri,K. Chakravarthi to the residence of theChief Minister in the night of 27.'022002 '.in'latter's staff car, whichhas been denied by Shri K. Chakravarthi. The statement of Shri K,. , 'Cbakravarthi has been supported by the entry made by Shri K.Chakravarthi in his staff car log book written by .himon the relevan!date in his own hand, which show that two persons (1+1), i.e. DGPand his PSO used the car on 27.02.2002. The version of Shri KChakravarthi is further corroborated by his PSOs namely Shri DilipAhir and Shri Dharmpal Yadav, who have categoricaUy stated thatShri Sanjiv Bhatt never accompanied the DGP 'in his stsff car,

It is a fact that Shri Sanjiv Bhatt did aerid four wirel.essmesssges on 27-02-2002 to,all the jurisdictional officers to take allprecautionary measures to prevent communal' riots as Godhraincident. was likely to have .State wide repercussions. These. wireless messages were sent by him as DCI (Communal) as ShriP.B, Upadhyay, the then DCI' (Communal) was on casual leave onthat day i.e 27-02-2:002. However, he had resumed duty in the

. J 408

8/2/2019 Sit Volumeii 371-458

39/88

evening. Significantly, on 28-02-2002, all the, concerned wirelessmessages were sent byShri P.B, Upadhyay I-the-.then DCI(Communal), who was dealing with the subject, 8hri Sanjiv Bhattas DCI (Security) had also sent a fax mess~ge on' 28-02-2002, to, ')

) Home Secretary" Gand,hlnagar with Information to PS to eM! PS toMoS (Home), DGP and Commissioner of,Police, Ahmedabad City,in which he hi;ia intimated about a~HindU mob attack on GulbergSociety resulting into death_of atle st 18.persons 'including LateAhesan Jafri, Ex-MP and its family members and the attack wascontinuing. Shri Bhatt had. expres ed his. apprehension that thisincident could have State wide ramifications. Though no tirne hadbeen mentioned on this message, yet it, appears that, this faxmessage was sent only, after the killings had taken place arid theGulberg- Society had been set on fir-e. l~ -all probability thismessage had been sent on the basis of the' fax message sent byPI C_J. Bharwad, the then PI, Ahmedabad -Crty Regional State IBoffice at 1700 hrs.

Shri Sanjiv Bhatt has further contended that in view of the'fact that Late Ahesan Jafri, Ex-MP was residing in Gu)bergSociety, he ha-dtelephonically conveyed the details directly to the'Chief Minister either on landline or on the mobile phone of Shria.p. Singh, PA to CM. However, he has not been able to specifyon which telephone he rang up the Chief Minister. Shri D.P. Singhhas denied that he received any call from Shri Sanjiv Bhatt. Thecall details of Gandhinagar' tower .are not available as the samehad not been requisitioned byShri Rahul Sh;3rma, the then SP,during. investigation of the' riot cases: Notably there is no practicein Gujarat of SP level officers speaking directly to CM over phone.Further, Shri G.C. Raiger, the then Add!. DG (Int.), who was verymuch in office on 28.02.2002, has stated that this was totally falseand that Shri Sanjiv Bhatt had never informed him aboutit.

Shri C.J Bharwad, the then PI, {:ltate IB, Ahmedabad Regionhas stated that on 28-02-2002, on the basis of informationcollected by him during the riots, he had_goneto Gulberg Society,

r 409

8/2/2019 Sit Volumeii 371-458

40/88

Meghaninagar of his own and passed on the various _informationreports colle~ted by him to State IB'lntro, Room, He has'furtherstated that around 1215 hrs on 2 -02-2002, he Had sent amessage to State 18 Control Room hat since Muslims reside inGulberg Society in Megh.minagar ar a, a ,strict watch shoul~ be

kept there, He has contradicted the statemerit made ~Y Shri SanjlvBhatt, the then DCI (Security), and has denied to have 'anytelephonic discussIons with h im about the 'situation In 'GLilbergSociety in as much as the 'subject conc;err1edthe "Communal"Desk of IB was being looked after by Shri P_.B,Upadhyay, thethen DCI (Communal). 'He has further stated to have passed on amessage at 1450 hrs on 28-02-2002, that a mob of 3000 riotershad surrounded Gulberg Society, On 28-02-2002 itself, he hadpassed on another message at 1700 nrs that a mob of 5090rioters had surrounded and set fire to the Gulberg Society" inwhich several persons including Late Ahesan Jafri, Ex"MP hadbeen burnt alive and that police deployment was required, Theversion of Shri Bharwad belies the testimony of Shri Sanjiv Bhatt,'the then DCI (Security), who has claimed that he had givendirections to Shri Bhar'wad to go to the Gulberg Society and givethe latest updates and that Shri Bharwad was in constant touch,witf him,

Investigation further revealed that the headquarters of StateIntelilgence Bureau is located at Gandhinagar and is headed by anAddl. DG, assisted by IGP (Security), DIG (Political & Communal)and.three Deputy Commissioners of Intelligence and other officersand supporting staff, Besides State IB , there are intelligence unitsheaded by Inspectorsl Dy,SsP workipg independently (n theDistricts. The State IB has been entrusted with, .the duties ofcollection of intelligence in respect of maintenance of law &: orderincluding communal intelligence in Gujarat State. In. brief, thefunctions of the State IB relate to collection and collation ofinformation regarding political, industrial and other similardevelopments in the State, verification' of antecedents, protectionand security of 'the VIP's, watch over anti-national activities,

I'I 410

8/2/2019 Sit Volumeii 371-458

41/88

movements of foreigners and all .cther matters pertaining to theinternal security, collection of intelligence regarding all types ofcommunal activities and to keep the Gc:JVt . informed of all theseactivities from tlme to time,

In February, 2002, Shri G.C_Raigerwas posted as Addl. DG(Int.) and was ~ssisted by Shri o.r-. Mathur, IGP (Security &Admn.). In-addition, tnere was another post of IGP (Political &Communal), which was lying vacant, due to the death of ShriS.Kumar in January, 2002. There were three SP rank officers outof which, Shri Sanjiv Bhatt "fas posted as DCI (Security), Shri P_B.Upadhyay as DCI (Political & Communal) and the third post wasDCI (Admn.) which was lying vacant. It has further come to lightthat Shri G.C. Raiger was on casual leave from 26~02-2002 to 28-02-2002 and was away to Rajasthan, but returned on 27-02-2002evening. Shri P.B. Upadyay, the then' DCl (Communal) was on 1;.leave from 26-02-2002 onwards to arrange for sacred threadceremony of his grand so~fjxed for 01-03-2002. However, ShriO.P. Mathur, IGP had called him up on 27-02-2002 'afternoon,informed him about the Godhra incident and instructed to resumeduties immediately. Accordingly, Shri U~adyay had resumeddU,tieson 27-02-2002 evening. However, in his absence, his workwas being looked after by Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, who was the onlyother SP rank-officer in the State lB.

Shri G.C. Raiger has stated that on his return to Ahmedabadon 27-02-2002, he had come to know about the Godhra incidentand had telephonically informed DGP Shri K. Chakravarthi on 27-02-2002 eVening that -he would cut short, his leave and come toGandhinagar, if necessary, to which the DGP asked hir:nto join on28~02-2002~Shri Raiger has denied having. been:informed by.the .DGP about the meetirig called at CM's residence' on 27~02-20a2late in the. night. Shri Haiger denied having :received anyinformation about the meeting from either the State IB ControlRoom, State Control Room or even Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, the then DCI(Security). Shri O.P. Mathur has als1 denied that he.r~ceived any

I . 411

8/2/2019 Sit Volumeii 371-458

42/88

such information about a meeting called at CM's residence on 27-02-2002 night Shri P.B. Upadhyay, the th~n DCI (Communal),who had resumed the duties on 27-Q2-2002 evening, and used tolook after Communal and Political section and was the concernedofficer to be associated with the said meetinq, had also noinformation about the said meeting thereby suggesting !hat no onefrom the intelligence was required to attend the said meeting.

Shri K. Chakravarthi, the then. DGP has stated that he hadgone to studios of Door-Oarshan, Ahniedab~d City on 27-02-2002late in the evening, for the telecast of an appeal to the generalpublic to maintain communal harmony'. and peace, when hereceived a rnessaqe from State Control Room that CM had calledfor a meeting at his residence at Ganchinaqar around 2230 hrs.Shri Chakravarthi has stated that. he straight away went to CM'sresidence at Gandhlnapar and reached there a little earlier andwaited as eM had not 'arrived from Godhra by that time. Accordingto Shri Chakravarthi, Smt. Swarna Kanta Varma, the then acting~ , . ,CS, Shri Ashok Narayao. the, then ACS (Home), $hri P.C. Pande, .the then CP, Ahmedabad City and Shri K : :NityamindarTl,' the the'nSecretary (H?me) arrived only subsequent'y, Shri. Chakravarthihas categorically denied having given any instructions to ShriSanjiv Bhatt,the then DCI (Security) to attend the aforesaidmeeting. He-rias further stated tht Shri Sanjiv Bhatt did notaccompany him to CM's residence i his car from DG's office, ashe (DGP).did not visit office. at that ti " He has also 'stated that incase Shrl Ralger was available at hmadabad. he would. havegiven instructions to State Control Room to call hlrn, According toShri Chakravarthi even otherwise, Shri a.p. Mathur, the then'IGP(Admn. & Sec.) was available and could 'have peen, 'called to. . . . .attend the meeting rather than asking Shri SC!njiv Bh,att, a juniorofficer of SP level to attend the said meeting.

Shri Sanjiv, Bhatt, the then DCI (Security) has named twoAIOs namely Shri K.D. Panth and Shri Shailesh Raval, who usedto accompany him to such meetings along with the files. After Shri

r 412

1;'

8/2/2019 Sit Volumeii 371-458

43/88

/,~~.

Sanjiv Bhatt's further "statement was recorded at his own requeston 25-03-2011, ~e insisted that Shri K.D. Panth, who wasaccompanying him and was waiting outside, should also beexamined. He etressed that.Shri Panth should be examined in hispresence. However, Shri Bhatt was' informed that Shri K.O. Panthwould be called on a' 'date convenient to the 10 and examinee.AccordingJy, Shri -Panth' was informed .cn 04-04-2011,. to attendSIT office on'05-0.~-2011;for htsexamlnation.

Shri K.D. Panth in his examination h1;ts~statedthat tie was oncasual leave 'on' 27-02-2002. Further,' he has denied that hefollowed Shri Sanj.iv Bhatt, the then OCI(Security) to C;:M'sresidence on 27-02-2002 night. How~ver, he has stated that Shrisa.n.iv Bhatt had called .him. to h..S reid. e.nce on.24-?3-2011 nightand informed that he was !;Ioing to rtake a statement before theSIT that he (K.D. Panth) .had gone t atte~d a meeting at ?M'S.residence on 27-02-200~ night, and that .he (F:anth) had beencalled at State IB office and be ready with the fiies .for the saidmeeting. Shri Sanjiv Bhatt further informed .Shr: Pa.n.th.that heshould accompany him to SIT office on 25-03-2011, a r l q i make a. .statement on these. lines.

. ,During his examination, Shri Panth further stated th~t he hascontacted Sh~~ Sanjiy Bhatt over his landline telephone no.27455117 from mobile no. 8140657775 (belonging to one of hisfriends) after he was called for examination scheduled for 05-04-2011. Shri Sanjiv Bhatt called him at his residence on 04-04-2011at 2030 hrs. At" hls residence, Shri Sanjiv Bhatt informed ShriPanth that he has made a statement to the SIT that he (Bhatt) hadaccompanied DGP' Shri K Ghakravarthi in his official car to eM's'office from DGP's office. on 27-02-2002 night and' that he (ShriPanth) had followed hirn in his (Shri Sanjiv Bhatt's) staff car alongwith the files. Shri Sanjiv Bhatt asked Shri PaRth to make astatement accordi ngIy.

Subsequently, Shri K.D. Panth lodged a complaint againstShri Sanjiv Bhatt with the local police to the effect that Shrj Sanjiv

413

II

II

8/2/2019 Sit Volumeii 371-458

44/88

, "

Bhatt had influertoed, ,threat'elled, detaine'o, put severe preasure. ,.' ,and compelled him to sign an affidavitcontaining fa.lse! wr6ng andincorrect facts,' _ jn pursuance .ofw'h i~h; '~ case no. I. CR

, , 'No. 149!20 11" was registered' u/s '189; 19'3, :195, 341, 342 IPC with- ,. , ,Ghatlodla pollee statton, Ahmedabad City, Gujarat State. Shri,Sanjiv Bhatt has since been arrestef' in this G~se ~nd the matter i~under in~esti~ation"In ~iew of thts'; 0 reliance can b~ placed uponthe version of S.hriSanjiv Bh,att , , ' ,~

This conduct of Shri Sanjiv Bhatt in 'arrangingLprompting 'andcontrolling the witness .to corroborate his statement is 'highly$UspjciOU~ an'd unde~irable, Shr:i S8rJjiv Bhatt ~Iso contacted Shr~Shailesh Ravai on .2B-03n2011 / 29-b3~2011" over mobile phone

. '. !

no. 9825688223' of one'ShriN.J. Ch'auha'n, a clerkin CM's- . ., .Security and informed him that he would qe called by SIT for his

examination. Shri Sanjiv Bhatt also asked Shrl S-haileshRaval thatl~'he had worked with him inSecurity Branch for a long time and was

I"awareThat he. (Sanjiv 'Bnatt) used. to. attend meetings, to wh.ichShri Raval reac.ted by saying' that he had' accompamed him inBorder Security 'Nodal :Committee rne~tihgs, wh'ich ~'Sed to dealwith the Border'~E1'cl:lrityonly, Shri Ravai also informed Shri SanjivBhatt that he never wori-;'ed-in the' Com'munal Brandl' arid Was not. .aware of anything. abcut ' it. Shri Sanjfv Bhatt - thereafter.disco nnected the pho ne. .shri Sha i lesh Ra~aI, PI Iater sent acomplaint, in WrJt lng to th e Chairma~l. SIT that he feared 'reprisalfrom Shri'San'jiv Bhat t as"he'h~d'refuse.d',to support the falseclaims of Shri Bhatt, Thlsls yet another-attempt on-the part of ShriSanjJv Bhatt to tutor a witness to depose in a particular: manner Soa's to support the statement made by him, which further makes hisclaim of having attended the m~eting at CM.'s residence on 27-02~.Z002,falsEl ..

. ,Shri Tarachand B, Yadav, driver constable In SRP Group-, 'XII, who had been dismissed from service on the charge of getting

employment ,in GYJarat PoH6~. O n 'the basis of, f a ' l s e and forgedcertificate, has stated that; h . e used to . q ri'i,"ethe staff car a T r otted to

414

8/2/2019 Sit Volumeii 371-458

45/88

~'~.-j'

~

'It;

,.

r~Ii ,'}~I '. . . .,

, . . 1 . .Shri SanJiv Shatt, the then DCI (Security) -

8/2/2019 Sit Volumeii 371-458

46/88

respond" In addition, the version of Shri Tarachand Yadav aboutthe movements of Shri Sanjiv Bhatt on 28-02'-2002, are proved tobe false in' as much as Shri Sanjiv Bhatt did not come toGandhinagar at 0900 hrs, as the call detail records of his officialmobile phone show his location at Ahmedabad City -tlll 1057 hrs.Shri Tarachand Yadav further contradicts the version of.Shri SanjivBhatt, who claimsto have attended a meeting on 28-02-2002 at1030 hrs, at CM"~ residence.' The overall impression left in thematter is that Shri Sanjiv Shatt has introduced him as a fals~witness with a view to' corroborate his own false version abouthaving attended a meeting at CM's residence on 27-02-2002night,