Back
Bombay High Questions Former Cop Sachin Waze's Luxury Cars, Links to Extortion in Antilia Case
The , while hearing the ’s () against the granted to dismissed police officer Sachin Waze in the Antilia bomb scare case, expressed sharp surprise over his ownership of multiple high-end luxury vehicles. A division bench of Justice Girish Kulkarni and Justice Dr Neela Gokhale observed that the former Assistant Police Inspector (API) regularly traveled in a Mercedes and owned at least five luxury cars including BMW and Volvo, despite drawing a monthly salary of only ₹90,000. The court noted that such a lifestyle raised serious questions about Waze’s integrity and pointed to a possible .
Surprise Over Luxury Cars
During the hearing on , Additional Solicitor General (ASG) , appearing for the , read out statements from witnesses indicating that Waze frequently used a Mercedes for his movements—including visits to his office, the Commissioner of Police’s office, and even the Chief Minister’s official residence, Varsha Bungalow. Justice Kulkarni immediately intervened: “Whose Mercedes is it? We are yet to hear that the API is riding a Mercedes… Who owns it?” When ASG Singh confirmed that the car belonged to Waze, the bench visibly reacted.
Justice Kulkarni remarked: “Whenever a crime is attributed to any person in uniform, we need to consider other aspects as well like his integrity, how he has been conducting himself, his loyalty to the uniform and some other considerations… Everywhere in the statements, we are noting that this man (Waze) is moving in a Mercedes… Which shows that there is something that’s required to be understood.”
The judge then questioned how an API could afford such a fleet of luxury vehicles on a modest government salary. “Isn’t this surprising? This man is an API and is travelling in a Mercedes everywhere… He uses this car to go to his own office, to the office of the Commissioner of Police and even to Varsha Bungalow,” Justice Kulkarni observed, adding that the was ultimately linking these assets to extortion.
’s Submissions on Antecedents
The opposed Waze’s on grounds of his past conduct and the seriousness of the offences. ASG Singh highlighted that before the Antilia case, Waze was also implicated in a case. “In the past, he has destroyed evidence, CCTV footages etc… Now also, he will tamper with the witness, he will destroy further evidence, but it will be very difficult to go for trials, because there are few witnesses that are truncated (identity not disclosed)… Literally very difficult it will be if such a person is let out,” Singh submitted.
He further argued that Waze, as a police officer, was meant to protect the public but instead used his position to create terror. “If there is any difficulty faced by any member of the public, he was supposed to protect them… he was given a responsibility of heading intelligence unit…. Now he himself does this type of act of creating a terror in the society, not only an act of creating terror in a family of an industrialist, but also of committing murder of a person… He is gone to that extent… There is an overall involvement in the entire case, but this is one of the most serious cases,” Singh submitted.
Court’s Observations on Conditions
Despite the ’s strong opposition, the bench noted that the special court had already imposed stringent conditions on Waze, including an order requiring him to stay out of Mumbai and several other districts until the concludes. Justice Kulkarni queried how releasing Waze would prejudice the ’s case in view of such conditions. “If you see the conditions of that he is required to be away from Mumbai…. Now that the is also filed and even the charges are framed, therefore, we can say there’s no issue in going for ,” the judge said.
ASG Singh countered by pointing out that Waze had a history of delaying the by filing multiple applications. He noted that out of 300 witnesses, the planned to examine only 150 and was ready to commence . “There are some orders of the special court, which directly blame Waze for delaying the by filing some or the other applications,” Singh submitted.
Legal Implications and Impact
The ’s observations on Waze’s and lifestyle carry significant legal weight. By linking the luxury cars to potential extortion, the court has opened a new dimension in the case—one that could be used to strengthen the ’s narrative of a corrupt officer misusing his position. This aligns with the broader judicial trend of scrutinizing the financial conduct of law enforcement personnel in criminal proceedings.
The case also highlights the delicate balance between conditions and the risk of . While the special court’s conditions (exile from Mumbai) are intended to mitigate that risk, the argues that Waze’s past conduct—destroying evidence and intimidating witnesses—renders those conditions insufficient. The High Court’s eventual decision will set a precedent for how courts assess the credibility of conditions for accused police officers with prior records of misconduct.
Conclusion
The hearing concluded with ASG Singh’s submissions, and the court adjourned to allow Waze’s counsel to present arguments starting . The outcome of this will not only determine Sachin Waze’s immediate liberty but also send a message about for police officers accused of grave offences. The ’s pointed questions about the former cop’s luxury cars serve as a reminder that the law expects the highest standards of integrity from those who wear the uniform.
