Head constable’s anticipatory bail plea in alleged extortion, seizure of muddemal reserved for April 10

PANJIM: The Principal District and Sessions Court on Monday reserved its order on anticipatory bail application filed by suspended police head constable Sanjay Talkar for order on Wednesday, April 10.

The police strongly opposed Talkar’s anticipatory bail application stating that his arrest his required for custodial interrogation as there are more things that need to be unearthed.

The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) of Goa Police also stated that Talkar had allegedly harassed the adventure sports operator Pruthvi H N from Arambol and took his harness and para glider for refusing to pay additional protection money to the police though G-pay despite his business being legal. An amount of Rs 8,000 was earlier transferred to the cop’s account.

The ACB was also of the opinion that the cop had no right to impound the harness and the para glider of the complainant as the prerogative was with the tourism department. 

“The Tiracol Coastal Security Police on the contrary should have written to the department of tourism if there any illegalities and only the latter had the power to impound the harness and the para-glider of the complainant,” the ACB said, opposing the anticipatory bail plea. 

It is reportedly learnt that the coastal police had even framed the complainant by preparing a false report and had booked him under the Goa Tourist Malpractices Act without even following proper protocol.

There is no provision in the Act for the police to attach any Muddemal, said the ACB. As per the Goa Tourist Trade Act, police have to record the information of any illegality and forward it to the Department of Tourism who issues show cause of seizure notice and if the violator does not comply then the department has the powers to impound the articles. 

   The incident occurred on March 22 and the muddemal was impounded four days and there is a CCTV footage corroborating the evidence,  informed a source from the ACB who added that there were names of two other senior officers featuring in the complaint.

Share This Article