IPS officer Saurabh Tripathi: a case of fence eating the crop, says court

While rejecting the anticipatory bail plea of Indian Police Service officer Saurabh Tripathi in the Angadia extortion case, the Mumbai sessions court said the overall conduct of the applicant reminded it of the proverb, “when fence eats the crop”

While rejecting the anticipatory bail plea of Indian Police Service officer Saurabh Tripathi in the Angadia extortion case, the Mumbai sessions court said the overall conduct of the applicant reminded it of the proverb, “when fence eats the crop”.

(Picture for representation. File Photo)

Additional sessions judge R M Sadrani rejected the pre-arrest bail plea of the suspended deputy commissioner of police (DCP) on Wednesday, but the detailed order became available on Friday.

“The applicant is a responsible person holding the post of DCP and is bound by law to protect citizens. He is not authorised to extract money from those doing illegal business using his authority. On the contrary, he has to act diligently to curb illegal transactions by following the provisions of law. Considering the overall conduct of the applicant, as pointed out by the prosecution, it reminds me of a proverb: when fence eats the crop,” the judge said.

The L T Marg police had on February 18 registered a case following a preliminary inquiry by additional commissioner of police (south), Dilip Sawant, under sections of extortion, robbery and wrongful restraint of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against three police officers.

Purportedly acting on Tripathi’s instructions, the three officers – police sub-inspector Nitin Kadam, assistant police inspector Samadhan Jamdade, and inspector Om Wangate – had in the first week of December 2021 allegedly extorted ₹19 lakh from Angadias in south Mumbai by threatening to report them to the income tax department.

Angadias deal in transporting gold jewellery and cash in exchange for a fee.

The court also took note of the fact that Tripathi had produced before the court a forged document in support of his plea.

“It appears that this document is fabricated to show that soon before the complaint of the Angadia association dated December 7, 2021, the applicant directed officials for inquiry into hawala transactions. In fact, this resolution is of month of September, 2021,” the court said.

Advocate Aniket Nikam, appearing for Tripathi, argued that the applicant had transferred the money at Lucknow through his servant Pappu Gaud towards expenses of looking after his parents.

To this, Judge Sadrani said, “The prosecution has recorded the statement of the Angadia service provider who had paid the amount at Lucknow to Gaud by taking it from co-accused Wangate. There is no explanation why co-accused [Wangate] forwarded the amount on behalf of the applicant.”

Nikam also argued that the charge of robbery was not attracted, and the rest of the sections levelled against the applicant prescribed maximum punishment of seven years imprisonment and therefore, police ought to have issued a notice under section 41A of CrPC.

The court said in the Angadia association’s complaint, there was a specific reference to the applicant, alleging that he demanded the money.

“Name of Tripathi was added as an accused on March 9, 2022, after the statement of co-accused Wangate was recorded. He is connected with the applicant in execution of the common intention. Further, when the workers of Angadia service providers were proceeding, police officials stopped them and took them to police station where Wangate extracted the amount from them through mediators. The above facts of the case clearly fulfil the essential ingredients of section 392 [robbery] of the IPC. Also, the sections levelled against the applicant prescribe punishment for 10 years and there is no question of notice [pre-arrest notice] under section 41A of CrPC,” the court said.

Considering the allegations against the applicant, responsibility cast on the applicant by law, material collected against the applicant, and conduct of the applicant while submitting documents in reference to a forged resolution, this was not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, the court added.