Justice M R Shah recently rejected Bhatt's application in the 13-year-old case when he was SP of Porbandar district. Bhatt had sought quashing of the criminal complaint filed against him.

The court also vacated the stay, granted by it in December 2010, on conducting criminal proceedings against Bhatt in the case.

The court has directed the magistrate of the Porbandar court to proceed with the trial and conclude the same within 12 months. All those concerned with the case have been directed by the court to co-operate with the trial court for early disposal of the case.

“This court is of the opinion that this is not a fit case to exercise the powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash and set aside the impugned complaint and/or order passed by the learned magistrate directing to issue process against the applicant (Bhatt),” the HC stated in its order.

Bhatt, along with constable Vajubhai Chau, has been charged for the offence punishable under sections 330 (causing hurt to extort confession), 324 (causing hurt with dangerous weapon) read with section 34 (action done by several persons with common intent) of the Indian Penal Code on the complaint against them by one Naran Jadav in 1998 for causing him physical and mental torture in police custody for extracting confession in a TADA and Arms Act case.

Bhatt is also facing criminal charges in connection with an alleged police atrocity case where one person had died in 1990 in Jamnagar district. A Jamnagar court is likely to frame charges against Bhatt and six other on January 13. While rejecting Bhatt's plea, the HC also took into consideration that his application for discharge from the case was rejected by the Porbander magistrate in August 2004, which he had not challenged.

And six years after dismissal of discharge application and a period of over than 11 years after initiation of the criminal proceedings by the Probandar magistrate, Bhatt has preferred the quashing only in year 2010 without explaining the delay, the court pointed out as one of the reasons for rejection of Bhatt's plea.

During the hearing, Bhatt's advocate Hriday Bhuch had argued that the allegations against his client were baseless.

He further said that the complaint needed to be set aside as sanction from the government was not obtained which required for prosecuting a police officer.

The complainant Jadav had further alleged in his complaint filed with the local magistrate in Porbandar that Bhatt, who was posted as Superintendent of police at that time, had given electric shocks to him, his minor son and brother in police custody, after arresting them.