Ex-IPS Officer Sanjiv Bhatt Moves Supreme Court Seeking Suspension of 20-Year Sentence in 1996 Drug Planting Case
New Delhi | 03.12.2025
Bhatt, already serving a life sentence in a separate custodial death case, has urged the Supreme Court to suspend his 20-year imprisonment in the 1996 NDPS case, calling the conviction unjust and procedurally flawed.
Former Indian Police Service officer Sanjiv Bhatt has approached the Supreme Court of India seeking suspension of the 20-year rigorous imprisonment imposed on him in the 1996 drug-planting case. His plea was mentioned before the Supreme Court bench on Monday, where the matter came up briefly and was adjourned for detailed hearing at a later date. Bhatt has argued that the conviction handed down by the trial court was legally unsustainable and that he deserves relief while his appeal remains pending.
The present case, now almost three decades old, traces back to the period when Bhatt served as the Superintendent of Police in Banaskantha district, Gujarat. In 1996, police officials had claimed to have recovered a sizeable quantity of opium from the hotel room of a Rajasthan-based advocate, Sumer Singh Rajpurohit, allegedly acting on confidential intelligence. At that time, the case appeared to be a major NDPS operation. However, the narrative soon shifted when Rajpurohit accused the police of deliberately planting the contraband to falsely implicate him due to personal and professional disputes.
This accusation gradually gained momentum over the years, with multiple inquiries suggesting inconsistencies in the police action. Eventually, the prosecution argued that Bhatt, along with some subordinate officers, had conspired to fabricate the recovery and misuse their official authority to target the advocate. The most damaging testimony came from a co-accused police officer who later turned approver, claiming that the entire operation was staged under Bhatt’s instructions.
In 2024, after an extended trial, the Sessions Court in Palanpur convicted Bhatt under several sections of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, including charges related to possession, conspiracy, and involvement in illicit trafficking. Additionally, he was found guilty under multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code, ranging from wrongful confinement and falsification of evidence to criminal conspiracy. The court sentenced him to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment, calling the episode “a clear abuse of power designed to destroy an innocent individual’s life.”
Bhatt has consistently denied all allegations. In his petition before the Supreme Court, he argues that the entire case is politically motivated and that the trial court ignored critical contradictions in the prosecution evidence. His lawyers—led by senior counsel—contend that the conviction was based primarily on presumptions and the testimony of an approver whose credibility, they claim, was questionable. They have also maintained that Bhatt has already spent several years in judicial custody and poses no flight risk, making him eligible for suspension of sentence.
The complexity of the situation is heightened by the fact that Bhatt is already serving a life sentence in a separate 1990 custodial death case. Because of this, his legal team has argued that keeping him incarcerated under multiple sentences without allowing appellate review amounts to severe prejudice and violates fundamental principles of criminal justice. They emphasized that Bhatt needs the chance to prepare his appeals properly, consult legal experts, and challenge both convictions effectively.
Before approaching the Supreme Court, Bhatt had filed similar applications before the Gujarat High Court, seeking suspension of his 20-year sentence. The High Court, however, rejected his plea, observing that the nature of the allegations—particularly drug-planting by a senior police officer—were extremely grave and had wider implications on public trust in law enforcement. The High Court held that sentence suspension was not appropriate in such a serious case.
The Supreme Court’s upcoming hearing will determine whether Bhatt is entitled to temporary reprieve while his appeal against the conviction moves forward. Legal analysts note that sentence suspension in conviction under the NDPS Act is extremely rare, especially when the charges involve conspiracy and fabrication of evidence by law-enforcement officials. However, the Supreme Court has the discretion to grant relief if it finds substantial grounds suggesting procedural irregularities or miscarriage of justice.
Sanjiv Bhatt’s legal battles have continued to draw national attention for over a decade, given his past involvement in high-profile controversies and his outspoken criticism of government authorities. His supporters maintain that he is being targeted for political reasons, while critics view the convictions as evidence of serious misconduct and abuse of power during his service.
As the matter returns to the Supreme Court in the coming weeks, all eyes will remain on the bench’s assessment of how the long-pending appeals should proceed and whether the former IPS officer deserves interim relief from his 20-year sentence.
! The information in this report is for general informational purpose only and may not be fully accurate or up-to-date !
LawPGLU