The Bombay High Court on Thursday dismissed a petition by former Mumbai police officer Sachin Waze, who challenged the legality of his arrest by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in connection with the Antilia explosives scare. Waze sought immediate release, claiming procedural violations in the extension of his remand and the legality of his arrest.
In his petition filed on April 24, 2024, Waze argued that no prior sanctions were obtained from the central government as required by state guidelines, which mandate sanctions before arresting a member of the armed forces. He claimed, “The absence of a valid sanction to my arrest marks the lack of jurisdiction to authorize my detention.”
Waze’s defense highlighted that his trial had been delayed for over 1,400 days, asserting that his detention and the police custody authorization were procedurally flawed and lacked proper jurisdiction. He maintained that the charges against him lacked substance, noting that the case had initially been investigated by the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) without uncovering any terrorist activities.
Advocate Rounak Naik, representing Waze, argued that the state government’s consent was not sought before Waze’s arrest, despite him acting in his official capacity as the investigating officer of the very case for which he was later detained. Naik contended that this oversight necessitated prior consent for the arrest.
However, the NIA’s counsel, Advocate Sandesh Patil, countered that all procedural requirements had been meticulously followed, and the court had taken cognizance of the offense with due consideration.
The division bench, comprising Justice Sarang Kotwal and Justice SM Modak, sided with the NIA’s arguments. The judges stated that Waze’s actions, including planting an explosives-laden vehicle near industrialist Mukesh Ambani’s residence and participating in the conspiracy and murder of Mansukh Hiran, were outside the scope of his official duties.
The court concluded, “By no stretch of imagination can it be said that the petitioner was acting in the capacity of his official duties. Therefore, there is no substance in the submission that the NIA should have obtained consent from the state government before effecting his arrest.”
