NIA Court Mumbai: Sachin Waze Bail Granted, No Antilia Terror Evidence

• A Mumbai special NIA court granted bail to former police officer Sachin Waze in the 2021 Antilia bomb scare and Mansukh Hiran murder cases.
• The court questioned the applicability of UAPA terror charges, citing a significant flaw in the prosecution's evidence.
• Judge Chakor S Baviskar noted the complete absence of witness statements from the Ambani family, the alleged targets of terror.
• The court criticized the NIA for failing to examine the victims, deeming this omission precarious to the prosecution's credibility.
• The NIA's request to stay the bail order was rejected by the special court on September 29.

The court's insistence on concrete proof, rather than assumptions, highlights the high bar for establishing terror under UAPA, reinforcing the need for meticulous investigation and victim engagement in such sensitive matters.

A special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court in Mumbai has granted bail to former police officer Sachin Waze, a significant development in the 2021 Antilia bomb scare case and the Mansukh Hiran murder case. The ruling, issued on September 29 by special judge Chakor S Baviskar, saw the court reject the NIA's immediate request to stay the bail order. This decision marks a crucial turn in the high-profile legal proceedings involving Sachin Waze, who faced serious charges related to the incident near Mukesh Ambani's residence.

Central to the NIA court's decision was a fundamental flaw identified in the prosecution's narrative concerning the explosives-laden SUV discovered near the Ambani family's residence, Antilia. The court highlighted a complete absence of any witness statements from the Ambani family members themselves, who were purportedly the targets of the alleged terror act. This lack of direct testimony from the alleged victims proved to be a critical deficiency in the case presented by the prosecution.

Judge Baviskar articulated that the prosecution failed to specify precisely whose minds Sachin Waze intended to terrorize. The court found it impossible to conclude that any terror was, in fact, created in the minds of the Ambanis, or anyone else, given the complete lack of recorded statements. Specifically, no statements had been taken under section 161 or section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, from any Ambani family members or their close relatives, which are crucial for establishing victim accounts. The NIA court Sachin Waze ruling thus directly challenged the basis of the Ambani family terror evidence.

The special judge did not mince words, severely criticizing the NIA for its failure to examine the alleged victims in the Antilia bomb scare case. This omission, the court stated, rendered the credibility of the prosecution's case "precarious." The ruling emphasizes that for UAPA terror charges Mumbai to hold, especially in cases alleging the creation of terror, direct evidence from those supposedly terrorized is paramount.

This judgment could set a significant precedent, particularly for defense lawyers challenging the application of UAPA in cases where direct evidence of terror creation, such as victim statements, is absent. It serves as a stark reminder to prosecutors regarding the critical importance of thorough evidence collection, especially when invoking stringent anti-terror laws. The court's insistence on concrete proof, rather than assumptions, highlights the high bar for establishing terror under UAPA, reinforcing the need for meticulous investigation and victim engagement in such sensitive matters.

This ruling underscores the critical importance of concrete evidence, particularly victim statements, in prosecuting terror charges under UAPA, offering a potential precedent for defense lawyers challenging the applicability of UAPA in cases lacking direct evidence of terror creation. It also serves as a reminder for prosecutors to ensure thorough evidence collection for UAPA cases.

Source: Original reporting via legal sources.