Bombay High Court: Overturns Sachin Waze Bail in Antilia Bomb Scare Case

• The Bombay High Court cancelled former police officer Sachin Waze's bail in the 2021 Antilia bomb scare and Mansukh Hiren murder cases.
• The decision by Justices GS Kulkarni and Neela Gokhale overturned a special court's September 29 bail grant, following an appeal by the NIA.
• The NIA alleges Waze planted a gelatin-laden SUV near Antilia for extortion and to stage a terror plot, later eliminating Mansukh Hiren.
• Waze's defense argued that staging a scare for personal gain or intimidating a single family does not constitute terrorism under UAPA Section 15.
• This ruling suggests a potentially stricter judicial interpretation of 'terrorism' under UAPA Section 15 for bail purposes, impacting future cases.

This ruling by the Bombay High Court concerning Sachin Waze's bail in the Antilia bomb scare case carries significant implications for future bail applications under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

The Bombay High Court recently delivered a significant ruling, overturning the bail previously granted to former Mumbai Police officer Sachin Waze in connection with the 2021 Antilia bomb scare and the subsequent Mansukh Hiren murder case. This decision, rendered by a division bench comprising Justices GS Kulkarni and Neela Gokhale, came after the National Investigation Agency (NIA) appealed a special court's order from September 29 that had allowed Waze's release.

The High Court's verdict effectively cancels the bail, signaling a potentially stricter judicial interpretation of 'terrorism' under Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for bail purposes. While the detailed order from the High Court is still pending, the immediate outcome means Sachin Waze will remain in custody, underscoring the gravity with which the court views the allegations against him in the high-profile case of National Investigation Agency v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

The core of the prosecution's case against Waze revolves around the discovery of a gelatin-laden SUV near industrialist Mukesh Ambani's residence, Antilia, in February 2021. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) contends that Waze orchestrated the planting of the vehicle as part of an extortion plot and to stage a terror incident. According to the NIA, Waze's alleged motive was to then 'solve' the manufactured crisis, thereby projecting himself as a 'supercop' and regaining professional influence.

Further complicating the matter, the NIA alleges that Mansukh Hiren, the owner of the vehicle found near Antilia, was subsequently eliminated. This alleged murder occurred, per the NIA's narrative, because Hiren refused to cooperate with Waze's scheme and was perceived as a 'weak link' who could expose the plot. The special court, in its initial decision to grant bail, had expressed reservations about the applicability of UAPA Section 15 terrorism charges against Waze, particularly noting the absence of witness statements from the Ambani family.

During the appeal before the Bombay High Court, Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, representing the NIA, argued forcefully that the special court's bail order was erroneous. Singh countered the special court's observation regarding the lack of Ambani family statements by asserting that statements from Antilia's security personnel had indeed been recorded. He reiterated the NIA's theory that Waze's actions were designed for extortion and to create a false terror scenario for personal gain, which, in the agency's view, falls under the ambit of terrorism.

Conversely, Senior Advocate VM Thorat, representing Sachin Waze, presented a defense that challenged the very definition of terrorism in this context. Thorat contended that even if the NIA's entire narrative were accepted as true, staging a scare merely to regain professional clout does not constitute terrorism under Section 15 of the UAPA. He further argued that intimidating a single family using gelatin, as alleged, does not meet the legal threshold for terrorism as defined by the Act, suggesting a lack of the requisite intent to strike terror in the public at large.

This ruling by the Bombay High Court concerning Sachin Waze's bail in the Antilia bomb scare case carries significant implications for future bail applications under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The court's decision to cancel the bail, despite arguments questioning the direct applicability of terrorism charges, suggests a potentially stricter judicial interpretation of what constitutes 'terrorism' under Section 15 of the UAPA, especially regarding the 'intent to strike terror' element.

Lawyers defending clients accused under UAPA should be acutely aware of this precedent. The High Court's stance may impact the likelihood of securing bail, particularly when arguments hinge on differentiating between acts of personal gain or intimidation of a limited scope versus actions intended to cause widespread terror. This development could lead to a more challenging environment for obtaining bail in cases involving UAPA Section 15 terrorism charges.

This ruling by the Bombay High Court, overturning a special court's bail grant, signals a potentially stricter judicial interpretation of 'terrorism' under Section 15 of the UAPA for bail purposes. Lawyers defending clients accused under UAPA should be aware of this precedent, as it may impact the likelihood of securing bail, particularly when arguing against the 'intent to strike terror' element.

Source: Original reporting via Bar and Bench