A special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court in Mumbai has dismissed former police officer Sachin Waze’s plea seeking discharge in the Antilia bomb scare and Mansukh Hiren murder case, delivering a sharply worded order that questioned both the content and purpose of his application.
Special Judge Chakor Shrikrishna Baviskar, in an order dated July 15, observed that Waze’s 157-page discharge application was overflowing with arguments but lacked the one ingredient that mattered—legal merit.
The court remarked that the application attempted to cover “everything under the sun,” blending personal opinions, selective interpretations of law, misplaced reliance on judicial precedents, philosophical observations, rhetorical flourishes, and even irrelevant literary references. According to the judge, the filing had become an example of how legal proceedings can be unnecessarily prolonged rather than meaningfully advanced.
In one of the order’s most striking observations, the judge commented that had the application been only a few lines longer, it might have rivalled the Britannica Encyclopedia in size. What remained absent, however, was any convincing legal basis for granting discharge.
Waze was arrested by the NIA in March 2021 over allegations that he played a central role in the conspiracy involving the placement of an explosives-laden vehicle outside industrialist Mukesh Ambani’s residence and the subsequent killing of businessman Mansukh Hiren.
Seeking discharge, Waze portrayed himself as an accomplished police officer with an unblemished service record, claiming that professional jealousy within the police force led to his implication. He also challenged the NIA’s investigation on multiple grounds, alleging lack of jurisdiction, procedural defects, absence of scientific evidence, contradictions in the prosecution’s theory, questionable CCTV evidence, and invalid sanctions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
He further argued that the prosecution had failed to establish that Hiren’s death was homicidal and contended that the facts did not justify invoking provisions of the anti-terror law.
The NIA opposed the plea through a detailed 145-page response, maintaining that the application was entirely devoid of substance. The agency asserted that the prosecution possessed extensive oral, documentary, technical, and electronic evidence linking Waze to the alleged conspiracy. It relied on call detail records, mobile tower location analysis, CCTV footage, and other electronic material to argue that the interactions among the accused reflected a deliberate and coordinated plan rather than mere coincidence.
After examining the record, the court noted that the charge sheet extends beyond 14,000 pages and is supported by statements from more than 300 witnesses along with substantial electronic evidence.
The judge concluded that the available material was more than sufficient to proceed with framing charges against Waze. At the stage of considering discharge, the court explained, it is required to assume that the prosecution’s evidence is prima facie true and cannot undertake a detailed assessment of its reliability or conduct a mini-trial.
The order also referred to Waze’s earlier unsuccessful attempts to challenge the proceedings. His application questioning the court’s jurisdiction and the validity of sanctions had already been rejected in October 2025. A challenge before the Bombay High Court against the UAPA sanctions was dismissed in March 2025, while a separate petition before the Delhi High Court questioning the constitutional validity of certain UAPA provisions had failed in 2022.
Observing that these parallel challenges had already been examined and rejected by competent courts, the special court held that no grounds existed to discharge Waze from the case and dismissed his application.
