AHMEDABAD: Dismissed IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt, who is serving a life sentence in a custodial death case, has approached the Gujarat High Court, as he is facing the framing of charges under a Jamnagar district court’s order in a 1990 custodial torture case.Bhatt was posted as an additional superintendent of police in Jamnagar when an incident of rioting occurred in Jamjodhpur town, leading to the arrest of 132 persons. Mahesh Chitroda, Ravjibhai Harjibhai, and Chetan Jani filed complaints of assault and torture against Bhatt and his two subordinates, Pravinsinh Zala and Shailesh Pandya, in 1992. The magistrate took cognisance of the alleged offence. It was the same incident in which one of the detainees, Prabhudas Vaishnani, succumbed to injuries sustained in police custody. For this, Bhatt was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.The High Court quashed the proceedings on two complaints, while a JMFC court at Jamjodhpur discharged Bhatt, Zala, and Pandya from the case on February 19, 2024. The complainant, Chitroda, challenged this before a Jamnagar sessions court.On June 26, 2025, the sessions court found that the JMFC court’s discharge order was erroneous and required interference. The discharge order was quashed, and the sessions court directed the JMFC to frame charges for offences punishable under sections 323, 325, and 114 of the IPC against the three former police officials and to proceed with the trial in accordance with the law.Additional Sessions Judge R V Mandani rejected the request to stay his order for a brief period to enable the accused cops to approach the High Court. He stated, “It has already taken a long period in this litigation since 1992, and about 30 years have been dragged in the matter carried on by the accused in higher forums till the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. If a stay is granted, then the litigant may have to fight by their next generation even after deciding the application on merits.”Meanwhile, Justice R T Vachhani in the High Court has adjourned the matter till December 8 and said, “It is made clear that the pendency of this application shall not come in the way of the concerned court in executing the sentence under the provisions of Section 418 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 458 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, in accordance with law.”