Angadia extortion case: Bombay HC grants interim protection from arrest to IPS officer till Nov 15

On October 19, a sessions court had rejected the anticipatory bail application of Tripathi, who was booked over eight months ago in the Angadia extortion case and has been on the run since.

After his previous pre-arrest bail plea was rejected in March this year, Tripathi, the suspended Deputy Commissioner of Police ( 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 chargesheet, the key witnesses did not identify the other accused and there was no evidence against him.

Tripathi told the HC that sessions court erred in refusing protection from arrest to him and sought urgent relief pending disposal of his plea in HC.

Through his plea in HC, Tripathi submitted 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 in the present crime 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 said he was apprehending his arrest in an FIR registered by Mumbai Police Crime branch which was initially registered at L T Marg Police station for offences punishable under sections 392 (robbery), 384 (extortion) and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The bench noted that the state government lawyer could not point out any incriminating material against the present applicant in the charge sheet. According to the lawyer, who is representing the police in the case, there is a remark in the charge sheet that few incriminating articles are required to be seized from the applicant. The lawyer sought time to take instructions from officials concerned to respond to the plea.

After the applicant submitted that he is ready and willing to cooperate in the probe, the judge noted that he was “inclined to protect the applicant” till the next date of hearing.

“In the event of arrest of the applicant, he 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. The applicant shall attend the Crime Branch Unit-DCB, CID CIU, Mumbai on November 9 at 11:00 a.m. and shall cooperate in the investigation,” the bench ordered as it posted further hearing to next week.