Back
City Civil and Sessions Court Rejects Sachin Waze in Antilia Bomb Case
The has formally rejected the filed by former police officer Sachin Hindurao Waze, marking a significant step forward in the ongoing legal proceedings surrounding the Antilia bomb scare and the subsequent death of Mansukh Hiran. Presided over by Special Judge HHJ Shri. Chakor S. Baviskar, the court concluded that the prosecution has presented sufficient material to proceed with the trial, dismissing Waze’s claims as devoid of merit.
A Complex Web of Charges The case, which originally involved three separate (FIRs)—one regarding the theft of a Mahindra Scorpio, one related to the explosive-laden vehicle found near the Mukesh Ambani residence, and one concerning the murder of Mansukh Hiran—was eventually consolidated and entrusted to the . Waze, a former officer with the , sought discharge by challenging the of the court and the procedural integrity of the investigation, alleging that he was a victim of inter-departmental rivalry and flawed evidentiary gathering.
Arguments and Judicial Scrutiny In his 157-page application (Exh. 527), Waze argued that he was unfairly targeted and that there was no scientific evidence, such as DNA or fingerprints, linking him to the alleged offences. He posited that the prosecution’s theory regarding the motive behind the acts was inconsistent and that the charges under the , were not sustainable.
The strongly contested these claims, asserting that Waze played a central role in the . The prosecution highlighted that the electronic evidence, including (CDRs) and tower locations, creates a case of collaboration between Waze and his co-accused to commit murder and terrorize high-profile individuals.
Key Observations Judge Baviskar expressed sharp criticism regarding the nature of the , noting that it served primarily as a tool for delay. During the proceedings, the court highlighted:
-
"Waze has pleaded everything under the sun which includes facts from his perception, philosophy as per his convenience, law as he picks and chooses, case laws on which reliance is misplaced, irrelevant rhymes and absurd rhetorics."
-
"At this stage, the Court is not entitle to make a into the pros and cons of the evidence. The material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true."
-
"I do not have any hesitation or even a slightest doubt that, more than sufficient material exists on record to frame the charge against applicant/accused No.1 Sachin for the alleged offences."
Proceeding to Trial The court’s decision underscores the standard required for discharge, emphasizing that a trial court should not engage in a "" at this stage but must instead focus on whether a case exists. By rejecting the application, the court has effectively cleared the path for the and the commencement of full evidence hearings. The implication for the accused is clear: the defense must now address the substance of the allegations in a trial setting rather than seeking pre-trial termination of the case.
With this ruling, the legal focus shifts back to the merits of the evidence, as the court maintains that the material presented by the is sufficiently robust to warrant a trial under the full scope of the invoked laws.
