Suspended IPS officer Saurabh Tripathi, accused in an extortion case of Angadiyas or traditional couriers, told a sessions court through his advocate on Thursday that he was not named in the preliminary inquiry conducted by an additional commissioner of police, which lasted two months and questioned how he was added as an accused only after his subordinate Om Vangate was arrested and taken in custody.
Tripathi’s advocate made these submissions in a hearing of his pre-arrest bail plea. His advocate Aniket Nikam told the court that a detailed preliminary inquiry was conducted by additional commissioner Dilip Sawant on a complaint by Angadia Association in December last year and in the FIR lodged by him based on it, he was not named as an accused. “The report absolves me,” his advocate said on behalf of Tripathi and pointed out that the report was filed after recording statements of witnesses and after perusing CCTV footages of police stations.
He argued that as per the preliminary report, policeman Om Vangate had extorted angadiyas along with two other cops. He said that the statement given by Vangate in police custody is inadmissible as evidence and it is on the basis of this statement that his custodial interrogation is being sought.
The advocate further pointed out that it was when the Bombay HC granted interim protection from arrest to Vangate, that he was added as an accused. Questioning the response filed by the police while opposing relief to him, he said his orders were being twisted. In a circular of Nov last year, Tripathi had asked police in his zone to take action on hawala operators.
“They are twisting the order as a direction to extort. If a superior officer gives a direction and a junior officer commits an offence instead, then should the superior officer be implicated,” the advocate questioned. “What is wrong to direct junior officers to take action against suspicious persons,” he asked.
The police in its reply opposing pre-arrest bail to Tripathi had also said that he had contacted witnesses and recorded their conversations while the preliminary inquiry (by the additional commissioner) was on. Tripathi’s advocate said that he had recorded conversations with angadiyas and shown it during the preliminary inquiry.
“What is my defence if they (angadiyas) plan to implicate me?” he asked. The advocate pointed out that it is not the police’s contention that his role has emerged in those conversations, but the issue is only that he had recorded the calls. The hearing will continue today (Friday).
.png)
