Mumbai angadias extortion: DCP Saurabh Tripathi was not authorised to extract money, says court

“Applicant (DCP) is responsible person holding post of DCP and bound by law to protect the citizens. Applicant is not authorised at all to extract the amount from the persons doing illegal business by using his authority. On the contrary, he has to act diligently to curb the illegal transactions by following the provisions of law,” additional sessions judge R M Sadrani said.

“Considering the allegations against the applicant, responsibility cast on the applicant by law and material collected against applicant, conduct of the applicant while submitting documents in reference to forged resolution, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Application deserves to be rejected,” he added.

The DCP had referred to a circular stating that he had issued it on November 15, 2021, directing the police officers in his jurisdiction in Zone-II to take action against illegal activities, including hawala operators. The DCP claimed that this showed that he had initiated action and the complaint was filed against him with malafide intent over the action. He had also submitted that if the junior officers used the circular to extort money, he could not be held responsible.

Prosecutor Abhijeet Gondwal, opposing the plea, said that the circular submitted was overwritten on, with the months changed from September to November to claim that it was linked to the action taken by junior officers in November.

The angadia association in its complaint to the police in November submitted that some of the angadias carrying cash were stopped, taken to a police chowki and demanded money from. The court also took into consideration statements of angadia association members who claimed that when they approached Tripathi, he demanded Rs 10 lakh from them to let them continue their work without action being taken. The Mumbai Police had also claimed that the money extorted was sent by co-accused inspector Om Wangate to the DCP by delivering it to his domestic worker in Lucknow through an angadia.

“Another ground raised by the learned advocate for the applicant that applicant has transferred the amount at Lucknow towards maintenance of his parents to his servant Pappu. On this point, prosecution has recorded statement of Angadiya Service Provider who had reached the amount taken from co-accused Om Wangate and paid same at Lucknow to the servant of applicant namely Pappu. No explanation is cited why co-accused forwarded amount on behalf of the applicant,” the court said.

Also, while the DCP had argued that section pertaining to robbery cannot be invoked in the case, the court said that since the angadias were restrained and extorted money from, the charge of robbery is made out.

Tripathi, who was transferred from Zone-II, had initially gone on leave. He was suspended last month.