Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Thursday set aside a special court order granting bail to dismissed cop Sachin Waze in planting of explosives near industrialist Mukesh Ambani ’s bungalow in a vehicle in Feb 2021, and the subsequent murder of the driver of the vehicle Mansukh Hiran, saying he has serious charges of blackmail and extortion against him and is eager to resurrect himself as a “supercop” after being under suspension for 16 years.
Justices Girish Kulkarni and Neela Gokhale observed the special NIA judge had adopted an “egregiously flawed approach” and his findings were “perverse”. Though akin to “something on celluloid” the actions amount to commission of serious crimes, the HC said. The HC, on analysis of the law and Supreme Court rulings, said “the trial court failed to apply and consider any of the settled legal parameters in deciding the bail application’’ and the special judge ought to have dwelt on grounds by which Waze’s bail plea was rejected earlier—where court had believed the accusations against him to be prima facie true.
The special Judge holding that criteria for framing of charges requires a lesser degree of satisfaction than a bail application is absolute legal perversity Directing his release a special NIA trial court Judge in Mumbai on September 29 had held that no offence of a ‘terrorist act’ was prima facie evident.
HC said, “The course of justice cannot be thwarted and the process of justice cannot be polluted, as (Waze) by no standard can be considered to be an honest public servant. Prolonged pre-trial incarceration cannot be a singular factor to grant Waze bail,” said HC, observing that “the offence carries a sentence of life imprisonment, and incarceration of five years cannot be said to be long incarceration in the facts of the present case. ” The HC noted that the UAPA mandate requires the Court to refuse bail in the face of existence of reasonable grounds to believe that the accusation is prima facie true. “Once this threshold is crossed, the appropriate judicial response is to ensure prioritization and expediting the case, not to grant bail in disregard of the statutory mandate” The manner in which the Special Judge granted bail, apart from demonstrating his strange approach, including the several contradictions it depicts, certainly cannot be overlooked. The NIA in its appeal said the trial court never considered the chargesheet it is proper perspective.
Waze’s plea was that sans detonators, no terror offence could have been invoked against him under the anti-terror law–Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).