Fresh FIR based on extracts from Supreme Court order, annexures

On February 27, 2002, a fire broke out in the Sabarmati Express, killing 59 people, mostly kar sevaks, returning from Ayodhya.

The FIR rests on the apex court’s observation that “all those involved in the abuse of such process need to be in the dock and proceed as per law”, and also verbatim mentions of several SIT submissions that have been held in the Supreme Court. were presented before the Court. The accused in this case- Sreekumar, Bhatt and Setalvad.

The Supreme Court’s decision, which included the amicus curiae’s comments in the case of Raju Ramachandran through annexures to the verdict, notes that the annexure “should be considered part of the decision”. The Annex is basically an examination of the investigation report submitted by Ramachandran before the Supreme Court by the SIT and his recommendations made in 2011.

As for the role of Sanjiv Bhatt, the FIR states that Bhatt, the then DIG, had sent a letter on December 30, 2011 to the Secretary of the Nanavati-Mehta Inquiry Commission, a copy of the fax message dated 28.02.2002, whose He had claimed. Sent to two different officers under his signature.

This is also part of the annexures to the judgment of the Supreme Court, where it was said, “Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, DIG (Suspended) has sent a letter dated 30.12.2011 to the Secretary, Hon’ble Justice Nanavati and Justice Mehta Commission of Inquiry. An Annexure ‘D’ is enclosed herewith, a copy of the fax message No. D-2/2-Com I/ALERT/174/2002, dated 28.02.2002, which he claimed to have sent under his signature to various officers Thereafter, on 04.01.2012, Shri Sanjiv Bhatt addressed to the Chairman, SIT, a copy of his letter No. SRB/COI/120104/01 dated 04.01.2012, addressed to the Secretary, Justice Nanavati Commission of Inquiry, in which A copy of the fax message was enclosed.

The FIR also relied on the observations of the SIT included in the Supreme Court judgment, in which the SIT examined the material forwarded by the Gujarat government. The SIT had concluded from the material, “From the perusal of the emails, it appears that some vested interests including Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, various NGOs and some political leaders may approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court/SIT as a forum to settle their scores.” Tried to use it. This finds a verbatim mention in the FIR.

With regard to the role of RB Sreekumar, the FIR is derived from the submission of the SIT which states, “Further, he did not make any allegation against the State Government in his initial two affidavits filed before the Commission, but initiated
The allegations are being made with effect from the third affidavit dated 94.04.2005.”

For Teesta Setalvad, the FIR again quotes the submission of the SIT before the SC. The SIT had submitted, “Appellant –
Zakia Ahsan Jafri, in cross-examination as PW-337 as CR No. 67/2002 in the Gulberg Society case, admitted that she had known Ms. Teesta Setalvad for some time and was about to meet Mr. RB Sreekumar after the incident. Too. She has stated that Shri RB Sreekumar had come to Gulbarga Society on 28.02.2002 and on completion of four years, she had met him. She had also stated that Mr. RB Sreekumar was presently working with Ms. Teesta Setalvad. He had also admitted in his cross-examination that he had given the statement before the Nanavati-Shah Commission on 22.8.2003 and after making that statement, he did not get any opportunity to read the copy of that statement. This was an indication of the fact that she was tutored by Ms. Teesta Setalvad but she never disclosed about it… She had followed the instructions of Ms. Teesta Setalvad… Final supplement filed by SIT in Gulberg Society case In the report CR no. 67/2002, it is clearly noted that 19 witnesses insisted on taking on record their ready signed statements which, according to them, were prepared by Ms. Teesta Setalvad and Advocate MM Tirmizi and their own statements. Didn’t show willingness to give. ,