The Bombay High Court on Thursday (November 5) while quashing the bail granted to controversial cop Sachin Waze by a special court, in the infamous Antilia Bomb Scare case, made it clear that no citizen of this country be it a common man or an industrialist can suffer even a remotest threat of terror.

A division bench of Justice Girish Kulkarni and Justice Dr Neela Gokhale while criticising the special court observation that nothing was on record to show that the Ambani family was 'terrorised' after the incident of an explosives-loaded vehicle found near their residence, said that only a person suffering from a threat can imagine its impact.  

"No citizen of this country much less an industrialist of repute, as in the present case who is contributing to the nation and its economy, can suffer even a remotest threat of a terror. A person who suffers threat of a terror can only imagine its adversities, as created by persons who indulge in these unlawful activities. In the context of bail, if such actions are not dealt strictly, with iron hands the law would mandate, the rule of law itself would be at a peril. Hence, Waze cannot be enlarged on bail. Granting of bail to him would be against the larger public interest," the judges held. 

'Super Cop' with a 'Clout'

In its detailed 86-page judgment, the bench took note of the 'clout' that Waze enjoyed and the allegation of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) that the officer wanted to re-establish his 'super cop' image. The bench was told that Waze was suspended for 16 years (from March 2004 to June 2020) and thereafter he was eager to redeem and resurrect himself as a 'super cop' and pursue his activities.

"He appears to have hatched the intricate plot of setting up Mansukh's car as stolen, substituting its number plates, parking it outside the Ambani residence, stuffing the car with explosives, and leaving a threat note in the car. On discovery of the car laden with explosives, material on record indicates that Waze portrayed such an act to have been done by a terror outfit by giving publication on the Telegram channel in the name of the terror group, claiming responsibility for the act. The said group immediately disassociated itself from the act by giving a similar publication thereafter. Brandishing the name of the terror outfit clearly indicates that his intent was to create terror in the minds of the common man, threatening a bomb scare. Then the so-called 'supercop' would step in to offer his protection to the rich industrialists and gradually extort money from them. This entire scheme, albeit it appears akin to something on the celluloid, nevertheless, the consequences of such action amount to commission of serious crimes, inasmuch as it exposes his acts," the bench held.

Prima facie, the bench said, that Waze far from being in the higher cadre, was able to indulge in these criminal acts by taking help of unsuspecting junior police officials and was clearly far beyond an ordinary government servant, with abnormal track record.

"As an Assistant Police Inspector, he possessed high-end luxury cars and was influential enough to get assigned investigations to himself, in which he was directly involved despite the cases being registered in various jurisdictional police stations. His clout in the police machinery, thus, should not/cannot be undermined. Added to this, his connections with high officials expose his proximity to influential persons. As contended on behalf of the NIA, the brazenness and impunity with which he was permitted to have a free run in openly operating an extortion racket, blackmailing hoteliers and bar owners with threats of false raids looming over them, also speaks volumes for his capability to influence witnesses. These are aspects of vital importance the Court needs to consider while dealing with the bail application," the judges observed. 

The bench further said that there is likelihood that in the position and clout as enjoyed by Waze and with the kind of affluence he wields, enlarging him on bail is likely to adversely affect the trial of the case. This not only be in terms of a reasonable apprehension of the evidence and witnesses being tampered, but also on several other relevant considerations, which are writ large on the record, it said.

"We may observe that there is no scope for any citizen and that too a person in uniform, who is supposed to act as a protector of the rights of the citizens, to indulge in such activities, as clearly seen from the accusations made against Waze, which are prima facie supported by such substantive material and evidence. These are vital considerations in the larger public interest as also in the interest of the State and the Nation in the context of the accusations. Thus, looked from any angle as also considering his antecedents, we are of the firm opinion that 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," the bench opined.

UAPA Provisions Prima Facie Made Out

The judges after noting the allegations levelled against Waze i.e. of using Mansukh Hiran's car, managing to get a fake number plate, procuring gelatine sticks and loading the said explosives inside the car and then parking the same near Ambani's residence in Mumbai prima facie has a direct nexus to the unlawful activities attracting the section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

The Court added that the prosecution material crossed the statutory threshold under Section 43D(5) of the Act, which bars the grant of bail where there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against an accused are prima facie true.

"We are of the considered view that the prosecution material as it stands crosses the threshold and the statutory embargo prescribed under Section 43D(5) operates with full force. We say so as, prima facie, having regard to the totality of the prosecution case, what seems to be of paramount importance is that various ingredients of a terrorist act, as envisaged under Section 15 of the UAPA, appear to be evident in the accusations as made against Waze. There is prima facie material indicating an act intended to threaten, or likely to threaten, the unity, integrity and security, including 'economic security,' of the country, and intended to strike terror, or likely to strike terror, among a certain section of the people in the country. Moreso, as such actions are clearly intended against a prominent industrialist family, which, as contended on behalf of the NIA, plays a significant role in the economic development of the country, considering the large industrial empire contributing to the country's economic development," the bench said. 

Special Judge Criticised For 'Casual' Observations

The bench 'regretfully' expressed its profound concern as to the casual manner in which the Special Court dealt with the proceedings of the bail application and more particularly in the context of the observations as made in the impugned order, which the bench 'clearly' opined, do not satisfy the test of any rationale, relevancy and far away from being a legally and factually sound reasoning in the adjudication of such proceedings.

"Such observations as made by the Special Judge, in fact sound strange nay abnormal in applying the elementary principles of what a judicial reasoning ought to be. It is thus quite incomprehensible to gather as to what the Special Judge really intended in making such bizarre observations. These observations clearly suggests a very odd approach to the matter as serious as this. The Special Judge has given a complete go-bye to the settled principles and parameters in determination of a bail application. The Special Judge has not examined any of the settled criteria; apart from demonstrating his strange approach, including the several contradictions it depicts, certainly cannot be overlooked," the bench said. 

The finding as recorded by the Special Judge that the criteria for framing of charges requires a lesser degree of satisfaction than a bail application is absolute legal perversity. This is even more true when the Special Judge has found prima facie substance in the accusations against Waze, the bench said.

"Another observation that liberty granted by this Court to file a fresh bail application indicates that this Court found merit in the Accused's case for bail, revealing the perverse approach of the Special Judge, when the said order passed by this Court, in no uncertain terms, directed that the bail application be decided on its merits, which necessarily was required to be decided in accordance with law. To read the High Court's order as if it was a carte blanche to avoid looking at any material, which was the material at all relevant times, including when his first bail application was rejected by the Special Judge, is an egregiously flawed approach of the Special Judge in passing the impugned Order. The impugned order accordingly would imminently deserves to be quashed and set aside," the bench held.

With these observations, the bench quashed and set aside the special court's order.

Appearance:

Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh along with Special Public Prosecutors Chintan Shah and Amogh Singh and Advocates Sundeep Sadavarte, Aditya Thakker, Karthik Garg, Krishnakant Deshmukh, Adarsh Vyas and Rohan Chaughule appeared for NIA.

Advocates VM Thorat, Sajal Yadav, Shalabh Saxena, Aarti Kalekar, Harsh Ghangurde, Raj Raut, Aayushya Geruja, Nihal Rebello, Disha Hatkar, Rasheed Nakhwa and Amar Bodke represented Waze. 

Tags: