A day after Supreme Court upheld the Gujarat high court order exonerating the then chief minister and present prime minister Narendra Modi, and others from allegations of orchestrating the 2002 Godhra riots, Gujarat police detained Mumbai-based activist Teesta Setalvad and former director-general of police R B Sreekumar from their residences in Mumbai and Gandhinagar on several charges including criminal conspiracy "to the process of law by fabricating false evidence to make several persons to be convicted for an offence that is punishable with capital punishment".
Sreekumar was later arrested by the Ahmedabad Detection of Crime Branch (DCB) after questioning him for several hours.
The process of abuse, according to the FIR, pertains to tutoring witnesses, giving false information and records to Nanavati Commission, which investigated the 2002 riots among others. Police inspector D B Barad of Ahmedabad DCB registered the FIR on Saturday at 11 am on behalf of the state government. The FIR was registered on the basis of remarks of the Supreme Court about those who had "kept the pot boiling" for 16 years.
Soon after the FIR, the DCB is learnt to have sent a request letter to Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) to Mumbai to bring Setalvad while a team of DCB picked up Sreekumar from his residence in Gandhinagar. "As of now, we have only detained him for questioning," Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCB) Chatainya Mandalik told DH.
The FIR alleges Setalvad, a resident of Nirant, Juhu Tara Road in Mumbai, Sreekumar, a retired DGP and a resident of Gandhinagar and Sanjiv Bhatt, presently lodged in Palanpur jail, under sections 468, 471, 194, 211, 218 and 120b of Indian Penal Code. The sections deal with forgery, fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of capital offence and government servant framing incorrect records.
The FIR mentions the apex court's judgment on Zakia Jafri's petition challenging the clean chit given to PM Modi and over 60 other government functionaries from their roles in the communal riots by the Supreme Court appointed-Special Investigation Team (SIT). While upholding the Gujarat HC order rejecting Jafri's petition, the apex court had observed, "All those involved in such abuse of process need to be in the dock and proceeded with in accordance with law."
Citing the remarks, complainant Barad has stated in the FIR, "In view of the same, as police inspector Crime Branch, Ahmedabad City, I had pursued the records of various proceedings and other material either in the official record or in public domain and have prime facie found that following criminal cognisable offences are committed by above named accused and various other accused persons. The following are only a few of the illustrative instances as investigation would reveal much more considering the totality of various calculated actions taken by the accused persons."
Charges against Sanjiv Bhatt
The FIR mentions specific roles of Bhatt, Sreekumar and Setalvad. Bhatt, already serving a life sentence in a custodial killing case, is accused of submitting false information before Nanavati Commission including his widely-publicised claim that he was present in the purported meeting held on the night of February 27, 2002, at the then chief minister's residence hours after 56 karsevaks traveling in S-6 coach of Sabarmati Express train were burnt to death, where Modi allegedly said, "let the Hindu vent their anger."
"Investigation by SIT conclusively established that Sanjiv Bhatt was not present in the said meeting and he had made above-stated claims nine years after the incident to falsely implicate various persons in grave sections of law. With a view to substantial such a false claim and with a clear intention of involving innocent persons with offences punishable with life, he forged and fabricated several documents," the FIR states.
It also mentions a set of emails sent by the Gujarat government to SIT exchanged between Sanjiv Bhatt, DIG, then under suspension, and "certain individuals co-accused during April and May 2011". It says, "The scrutiny of the material forwarded established certain vested interests individuals and organisations including Bhatt, different NGOs, some political leaders and organisations were hatching a conspiracy to use various forums such as HC, SIT for setting their scores and achieve an unlawful object of implicating innocent individuals in offences punishable with life."
“For achieving this criminal intent, Sanjiv Bhatt received some packets from others to achieve the criminal conspiracy of involving innocent individuals in serious offences punishable with life. There is, thus, clear inducement incentive (monetary and others) received by Sanjiv Bhatt," the FIR alleges.
Charges against Teesta Setalvad
"There is material in the final report submitted by the SIT which indicates that Teesta Setalvad had conjured/concocted/forged/fabricated facts and documents and evidence including fabrication of documents by persons who were prospective witnesses of the complainant. It is not only a case of fabrication of documents but also of influencing and tutoring the witnesses and making them depose on pre-typed affidavits, as has been noted in the judgment of the Gujarat High Court dated 11/7/2011 in criminal miscellaneous applications," the FIR mentions.
It says that "Zakia Jafri in her cross-examination in Gulberg Society case had conceded that she knew Teesta Setalvad for some time and also about having met RB Sreekumar after the incident. She had stated that RB Sreekumar had come to Gulberg Society on 28/3/2002 and upon completion of four years, she had met him. She had also stated that RB Sreekumar was presently working with Teesta Setalvad. She had also admitted in her cross-examination that she had given a statement on 22/8/2003 before the Nanavati Shah Commission and after giving that statement, she had no occasion to read a copy of that statement. This indicates that she was tutored by Teesta Setalvad, a fact that she had to admit in the cross-examination. She had also admitted in her cross-examination that she had throughout followed the instruction of Teesta Setalvad. In the final supplementary report filed by the SIT in Gulberg Society case, it has been clearly noted that nineteen witnesses insisted to take on record their prepared signed statements, which according to them, were prepared by Teesta Setalvad and advocate MM Tirmizi and did not show willingness to give their own statement."
Charges against R B Sreekumar
The FIR states that most of the allegations in the complaint of Zakia Jafri are drawn from the nine affidavits filed by RB Sreekumar before Nanavati Commission. "It is a matter of record that Sreekumar, retired IPS, was posted as an additional Director General of police (armed unit) Gujarat at the time of riots and fact stated by Sreekfumar in the nine affidavits filed before the commission of inquiry does not derive any of its content from the personal knowledge/information which he might have received as an occupant of this post."
Similarly, perusal of his statement recorded by the special investigation team reveals that the knowledge/information of all facts, pertinent to the complaint, mentioned by him is acquired after he was posted as additional DG (intelligence) Gujarat on April 9, 2002. Further, Sreekumar didn’t make any allegations against the state government in his initial two affidavits filed before justice Nanavati Commission of inquiry and started alleging only from the third affidavit dated 9/4/2005.
Sreekumar has stated before the SIT that he took over as Additional DG (intelligence) on 9/4/2002 and that he had been given many verbal orders, of which many were illegal and against the spirit of the Constitution of India. He had further stated that he had got issued a registration from OP Mathur, the IGP (admin and security, now retired) top record verbal instruction from higher officers i.e DGP and above.
An investigation conducted by SIT conclusively proves that in the said register Sreekumar had done antedating, and affixed secret and round office stamps without the knowledge of issuing authority. This reflects that Sreekumar had done these acts and many others deliberately to falsely implicate certain persons in grave sections of law.