"He Is A Police Officer, Knows His Rights" – Special NIA Court On Waze's Allegations That Guidelines Of Arrest Were Not Followed

Even as Assistant Police Inspector Sachin Waze has approached the Bombay High Court calling his arrest by the National Investigating Agency "illegal," a Special NIA court, rejected his application on irregularities in arrest. "It is an admitted fact that the accused was a police person and hence is knowing about his right," Special NIA Judge Prashant Sitre observed. Waze was arrested on March 13 for allegedly being the prime suspect in the Ambani House Explosives Case, and sent to the agency's custody till March 25 the following day. Waze's application before the Special NIA court was two-fold. First, that he was not produced before the court within 24 hours, neither was he allowed counsel access. He also alleged his family was not informed about the grounds for his arrest. Secondly, sanction to arrest him was not obtained u/s 45(1) of the CrPC, as per a 1997 State government notification. Special Prosecutor Sunil Gonsalves appearing on behalf of the NIA submitted that Waze was a police officer, well aware of his rights. He did not ask for counsel access, he said. Gonsalves submitted that Waze deliberately came in for questioning without his mobile handset so they were unable to inform his family members about his arrest, but the concerned police station was informed. He also argued that Waze was arrested at 11.50 pm and produced the very next day, at 2.45 pm, which shows he was produced within 24 hours. The judge agreed with the prosecutor. Special Judge Sitre observed: It is an admitted fact that the accused was a police person, and hence, is in the knowledge about his right. The entry in the station diary reflects that intimation was provided to the accused and the police station concerned, so also, the information about his arrest. It means the grounds of arrest were provided to the accused. He relied on the Supreme Court judgement in the case of Raj Kishore Roy vs Kamleshwar Pandey and others AIR 2002(SC) 2861, where the court observed the question of whether respondent no.1 acted in the course of performance of his duties and/or whether the defence is pretended or fanciful can only be examined during the trial. The court partly allowed another application by Waze for his lawyer Sajal Yadav to watch Waze's interrogation from a distance but not be within earshot. The judge noted that 41-D of the CrPC partially allows an accused counsel access. The Special Judge, however, relied on the case of Senior Intelligence Officer vs Jugal Kishore Sharma 2011(2) AIR 223-8 SCC to say that an accused cannot consult with his lawyer during interrogation. Background On February 25, an explosives-laden Scorpio Car was found near Antilia, industrialist Mukesh Ambani's house on Altamont Road in South Mumbai. The car contained 20 gelatine sticks (explosive) and a threat letter inside. The case was being investigated by Waze and his team at the Crime Branch, Mumbai. However, the case was transferred to the NIA after allegations against Waze surfaced. NIA has registered an FIR u/s 286 (Negligent conduct concerning explosive substances), 465 (Punishment for forgery), 473 (making or possessing counterfeit seal), 506 II (punishment for criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 4(a)(b)(i) of the Explosive Substances Act (Punishment for attempt to cause an explosion, or for making or keeping explosive with intent to endanger life or property).

"He Is A Police Officer, Knows His Rights" – Special NIA Court On Waze's Allegations That Guidelines Of Arrest Were Not Followed

Sharmeen Hakim

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sharmeen Hakim

"He Is A Police Officer, Knows His Rights" – Special NIA Court On Waze's Allegations That Guidelines Of Arrest Were Not Followed

Sharmeen Hakim

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sharmeen Hakim

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers