Ahmedabad: There was a double trouble for controversial dismissed IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt on Friday.

The Gujarat high court rejected his plea for quashing a criminal complaint filed by complainant Mahesh Chitroda against him accusing him of committing atrocity as superintendent of police in Jamnagar district in 1999. Justice Bela Trivedi dismissed petition after Bhatt’s lawyer failed to appear for hearing.

The order reads: ‘None is present for the applicant though the matter is called out twice. Hence, the matter is dismissed for default.’

On the other hand, sessions court in Palanpur in its verdict denied bail to Bhatt in 22-year-old drug planting case.

As per the Times of India report, following are court observations while denying Bhatt’s bail plea:

-Bhatt may tamper with evidence as the case diary was already found to be tampered with.

-Bhatt has criminal past as he faces serious charges in various cases, including murder.

-Bhatt was, prima facie, involved in the conspiracy to plant opium to frame Sumersinh Rajpurohit. The victim was a lawyer and could hence put up a fight for 22 years. “Had it been an ordinary citizen, there would not have been any option available for him but to remain a victim and tolerate the injustice.”

-Bhatt had obtained bail from a Pali court on the condition that he would not leave India without the court’s permission, but Bhatt left for foreign shores on five occasions without the court’s permission. This leads the court to suspect that the accused may not follow the bail conditions, if released on bail.

-Bhatt made a declaration before the passport authority in 2017 that there was no criminal proceeding, arrest warrant or summons pending against him, whereas he was facing trial in courts in Jamnagar, Ahmedabad and Pali.

-Rajpurohit, the alleged victim in this case, also opposed Bhatt’s bail plea by placing voluminous evidence before the court.

-The court disbelieved Bhatt’s argument that the case registered in Pali and Palanpur are for a single transaction and he hence cannot be booked for it again. The court said that the high court’s observation that these cases are different is binding on it.

The investigation in this case took place on the HC directions, on petitions filed by retired HC judge R R Jain and Vyas, for a further probe in this case.