Angadia extortion case: HC confirms interim protection from arrest granted to suspended DCP

A single-judge bench of Justice Bharati H Dangre on Tuesday passed an order granting anticipatory bail to Tripathi, making the interim protection earlier granted absolute. The judge was hearing Tripathi’s anticipatory bail plea filed in the high court after relief was refused to him by the sessions court last month.

“In the event of arrest of the applicant, applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs 25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount,” Justice Dangre ordered and asked Tripathi to cooperate with the investigation.

The case pertains to a complaint made by the Angadia association on December 7 last year to a senior Mumbai police officer that IPS officer Saurabh Tripathi, DCP Zone 2, had demanded a monthly bribe of Rs 10 lakh to “allow” the angadias to run their business.

The vacation bench had earlier noted that the state government lawyer could not point out any incriminating material against the present applicant in the charge sheet. The bench had asked him to appear before the investigating officer on November 9 for interrogation. Tripathi, who had been on the run for eight months, appeared before the Mumbai police on the said date.

While he was to appear before the Crime Intelligence Unit’s (CIU) office at the Mumbai police headquarters at Crawford market, Tripathi’s statement was recorded on November 9 at an undisclosed location “in order to avoid media scrutiny”. It is usually in rare instances that the police allow the statement of an accused to be recorded at some location other than the designated one.

On October 19, a sessions court had rejected the anticipatory bail application of Tripathi, who was booked over eight months ago in the case. After his previous pre-arrest bail plea was rejected in March, the suspended DCP had approached the sessions court again after other accused, including his brother-in-law, were granted bail. Tripathi had told the court that there was a change in circumstances from his previous plea. It was submitted that according to the charge sheet, the key witnesses did not identify the other accused and there was no evidence against him.

Tripathi told the high court that the sessions court erred in refusing protection from arrest to him and sought urgent relief pending disposal of his plea in high court. He submitted before the high court that initially he was not named as an accused in the FIR and there are no allegations against him in the entire FIR filed in December last year. Tripathi added that he was arraigned as an accused only in March this year on the basis of “surmises and conjectures”.

Tripathi, in his plea argued through advocates Pushpa V Ganediwala, Vinod S Chate and Kalpana V Chate, alleged that former Mumbai Police commissioner Sanjay Pandey, “with prejudiced mind and vendetta” against him “for not heading SIT against Param Bir Singh declared publicly in the media as to why Tripathi is not made an accused, although the preliminary inquiry exempted him from any such role.”

Tripathi’s pre-arrest bail plea stated: “There is nothing to be recovered at the behest of the applicant and hence the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not warranted. He is a victim of conspiracy of the people who want him out of service. He is already suspended and there is no question of the applicant wielding any influence on any witness. Nor is there a question of tampering of any evidence.”

The applicant had said he was apprehending his arrest in an FIR registered by the Mumbai Police Crime branch which was initially registered at LT Marg Police station for offences punishable under sections 392 (robbery), 384 (extortion) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC.