<p>The plea pertained to an FIR lodged by a Gujarat State police constable in Ahmedabad alleging that Bhatt had pressurised him to sign an affidavit testifying that the officer participated in a high-level meeting after the Godhra carnage in which Bhatt had alleged he witnessed the Chief Minister's anti-Muslim bias.<br /><br />A bench of justices Aftab Alam and R M Lodha asked the Gujarat government and the Centre to file their replies on Bhatt's plea by August 8, the next date of hearing.<br />In an affidavit to the apex court, Bhatt had alleged that he had attended a crucial meeting convened by Chief Minister on February 27 2002 after Godhra incident, in which Modi had instructed senior government officials to allow Hindus to "vent out their anger" during the clashes and wanted Muslims to be "taught a lesson".<br /><br />The apex court, however, had declined to take Bhatt's affidavit on record.<br />Gujarat State police constable K D Pant had later filed a complaint against Bhatt accusing him threatening him and making him sign a false affidavit regarding the offcer's participation in the crucial meeting convened by Modi.<br /><br />The registration of the case against Bhatt came as questions were raised by state government officials that Bhatt was still a superintendent-rank police officer and was not senior enough to attend the high level meeting attended by top government officials.</p>.<p>Following the complaint by Pant, who had worked under Bhatt during 2002 riots in Gujarat, the Ghatlodia police in Gujarat had registered an FIR against the officer on charges of threatening a public servant, fabricating false evidence and wrongful confinement.<br /><br />Bhatt, in his affidavit filed in the Supreme Court. had alleged complicity of Modi in post-Godhra riots and had also stated that Pant, who knew about the CM's meeting, was threatened with dire consequences and arrest by the special investigation team (SIT) probing some of the 2002 riot cases on the directions of the apex court.<br /><br />He had further alleged Pant was virtually treated like an accused by the SIT during his questioning on April 5, 2011. </p>
<p>The plea pertained to an FIR lodged by a Gujarat State police constable in Ahmedabad alleging that Bhatt had pressurised him to sign an affidavit testifying that the officer participated in a high-level meeting after the Godhra carnage in which Bhatt had alleged he witnessed the Chief Minister's anti-Muslim bias.<br /><br />A bench of justices Aftab Alam and R M Lodha asked the Gujarat government and the Centre to file their replies on Bhatt's plea by August 8, the next date of hearing.<br />In an affidavit to the apex court, Bhatt had alleged that he had attended a crucial meeting convened by Chief Minister on February 27 2002 after Godhra incident, in which Modi had instructed senior government officials to allow Hindus to "vent out their anger" during the clashes and wanted Muslims to be "taught a lesson".<br /><br />The apex court, however, had declined to take Bhatt's affidavit on record.<br />Gujarat State police constable K D Pant had later filed a complaint against Bhatt accusing him threatening him and making him sign a false affidavit regarding the offcer's participation in the crucial meeting convened by Modi.<br /><br />The registration of the case against Bhatt came as questions were raised by state government officials that Bhatt was still a superintendent-rank police officer and was not senior enough to attend the high level meeting attended by top government officials.</p>.<p>Following the complaint by Pant, who had worked under Bhatt during 2002 riots in Gujarat, the Ghatlodia police in Gujarat had registered an FIR against the officer on charges of threatening a public servant, fabricating false evidence and wrongful confinement.<br /><br />Bhatt, in his affidavit filed in the Supreme Court. had alleged complicity of Modi in post-Godhra riots and had also stated that Pant, who knew about the CM's meeting, was threatened with dire consequences and arrest by the special investigation team (SIT) probing some of the 2002 riot cases on the directions of the apex court.<br /><br />He had further alleged Pant was virtually treated like an accused by the SIT during his questioning on April 5, 2011. </p>