Supreme Court fines Sanjeev Bhatt Rs 3 lakh for petition against trial judge in alleged drugs planting case

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (October 3) imposed a fine of Rs 3 lakh on dismissed IPS officer Sanjeev Bhatt for filing a petition alleging bias and impropriety against the presiding judge hearing an alleged drug planting case. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh each on three petitions filed by Bhatt. This fine will have to be deposited to the Gujarat High Court Advocates Association.

One of the petitions sought to transfer the trial to the court of senior-most additional sessions judge Banaskantha in Palanpur, accusing the current trial judge of bias. Another petition sought direction to audio-video record the trial court proceedings. The third petition sought to add additional evidence in the case. As soon as the hearing of the case began, Justice Vikram Nath asked, “How many times have you gone to the Supreme Court? At least a dozen times?” Justice Nath then pointed to the order passed by the Supreme Court in February this year, which had rejected his challenge against the High Court’s direction to expedite the trial with a fine of Rs 10,000/-.

Senior advocate Devdutt Kamat, appearing for Bhatt, said an application was filed to call 19 witnesses, who were part of the prosecution witnesses, who were later deposed. “If the prosecution has cited these witnesses and deposed them, and I want to examine them as witnesses, how can it be called vexatious or an attempt to delay the trial,” Kamat asked. He cited Section 233(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

However, the bench was not inclined to consider the cases and dismissed them. What were the three petitions filed by Bhatt? The first petition (SLP (CRL) No. 11884/2023) was filed on August 24 against the order by a bench of Justice Sameer J Dave rejecting the plea to transfer the trial to another court. The second petition (SLP (CRL) No. 11943/2023) was filed against the order passed on August 24 by a bench of Justice Sameer J Dave rejecting the plea seeking audio-video recording of the trial proceedings.