Mumbai, Maharashtra – August 30, 2022 – Ashutosh Jagdambaprasad Mishra, an Assistant Commissioner of the State Goods and Services Tax (SGST), has been granted bail by the Additional Sessions Court in Mumbai in connection with an extortion case involving police officers and Angadiya (courier) operators. The court, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge Dr. A.A. Joglekar, granted bail after the investigating officer declared they no longer required Mishra’s custodial interrogation.

Mishra was arrested and arraigned as accused number five in C.R. No. 17/2022, registered with the DCB CID CIU, for offenses under Sections 392 (robbery), 384 (extortion), 341 (wrongful restraint), 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention), and 120(B) (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).¹

Background of the Case:

The case stemmed from a complaint filed by Angadiya operators alleging that police officers, accused numbers one to three, extorted money from them at the Mumba Devi Police Chowki. The operators claimed they were illegally restrained and threatened with information being passed to the Income Tax Department. The investigation revealed that the alleged extortion was carried out at the behest of Saurabh Tripathi, the then Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), Circle-II, who is currently a wanted accused.

Mishra, who is related to Tripathi, was implicated in the case based on allegations that he received funds transferred via Hawala by Tripathi. Call Detail Record (CDR) and Source Detail Record (SDR) analyses were cited as evidence of these transactions.

Applicant’s Arguments for Bail:

Ashok Saraogi, representing Mishra, argued that his client was falsely implicated. He stated that no direct role was attributed to Mishra in the extortion, and the allegations were based solely on the statements of co-accused. Saraogi highlighted that the main accused police officers, whose alleged roles were more serious, had already been granted bail. He also pointed out that witnesses failed to identify the main accused during a Test Identification Parade (TIP), suggesting a weak case against Mishra.

Prosecution’s Stance and Court’s Decision:

The prosecution, represented by APP Abhijit Gondwal, initially opposed the bail, citing the recovery of Rs. 1,50,000 from Mishra and the ongoing investigation to trace the source of the remaining funds. However, during the hearing on August 25, 2022, investigating officer Prashant B. Sawant declared that they did not require further custody of Mishra.

Judge Joglekar, after considering the arguments and the investigating officer’s statement, granted bail to Mishra. The court noted that the prosecution had effectively conceded to the bail, as they no longer sought Mishra’s custody.

Bail Conditions:

The court granted bail to Mishra on the following conditions:

• Mishra must furnish a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one or two sureties of the same amount.
• Mishra and his surety must provide their residential addresses, mobile numbers, and email addresses.
• Mishra must not directly or indirectly influence any witnesses in the case.
• Mishra must not tamper with any prosecution evidence.
• Mishra must attend the Crime Branch Unit-DCB CID, CIU, Mumbai, every Tuesday and Friday between 11:00 AM and 4:00 PM until further orders.
• Mishra must surrender his passport to the investigating officer or provide an affidavit stating he does not possess one.
• Mishra must not leave India without the court’s permission.
• The court ordered the statement of the investigating officer to be conveyed to the superiors of the prosecuting agency, the DCP of the concerned zone, and the District Magistrate.
• The Magistrate Court was informed of the bail order.

Outcome:

The court’s decision hinged on the investigating officer’s statement that Mishra’s custodial interrogation was no longer required. This effectively removed the primary ground for opposing bail. The stringent conditions imposed by the court aim to ensure Mishra’s cooperation with the ongoing investigation and prevent any potential obstruction of justice. The case highlights the complexities of investigating corruption and extortion cases involving law enforcement officials and the importance of procedural fairness in judicial proceedings.