Kiran Raj

The Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus filed by Sachin Hindurao Waze, who challenged the legality of his detention under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) and the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act. The division bench comprising Justice Sarang V. Kotwal and Justice S. M. Modak observed that the petitioner’s arrest and subsequent remand orders were legally valid and in compliance with statutory provisions.

The petitioner contended that his detention was unlawful due to procedural lapses, including the alleged absence of State Government consent under Section 45 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), and non-compliance with remand requirements under Sections 167 and 309 of the Cr.P.C. However, the court recorded that the investigation was conducted by the NIA, and the offences involved, including those under the Explosive Substances Act, fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Special Court under the NIA Act.

The petitioner was arrested in connection with multiple interlinked cases, including the placement of an explosives-laden vehicle near a prominent industrialist’s residence and the subsequent murder of Mansukh Hiren, whose stolen vehicle was used in the incident. Three separate criminal cases—C.R. No. 47 of 2021 (Vikhroli police station), C.R. No. 35 of 2021 (Gamdevi police station), and an accidental death report at Mumbra police station—were eventually consolidated into the NIA’s investigation under F. No. 11011/19/2021/NIA.

The petitioner, who was initially the investigating officer in these cases, was later arrested by the NIA on March 13, 2021. The charge-sheet was filed before the Special Court on September 3, 2021, and cognizance was taken on September 7, 2021. The petitioner contended that his detention between these dates lacked legal authorization.

Also Read: Supreme Court Holds Reservation of Land Lapsed Due to Non-Acquisition Within Statutory Period

The petitioner’s counsel, Rounak Naik, argued that the arrest was unlawful as no prior consent was obtained under Section 45 of the Cr.P.C., which protects public officials from arrest for acts performed in the course of their official duties. He contended that the petitioner, as an investigating officer, was entitled to this protection and that his arrest without consent rendered subsequent remand orders invalid.

The petitioner further argued that after the charge-sheet was filed on September 3, 2021, the remand order under Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. ceased to be effective. Since the Special Court took cognizance only on September 7, 2021, he claimed that there was a four-day period of illegal detention. Additionally, he challenged the Special Court’s jurisdiction over his first remand, arguing that it should have been obtained from a Magistrate instead.

The counsel for the NIA, Sandesh Patil, opposed the petition, stating that the petitioner’s acts were outside the scope of official duties and involved a conspiracy to plant explosives and murder a key witness. He argued that the Special Court under the NIA Act had exclusive jurisdiction over the offences and remand procedures. He further contended that the petitioner had previously filed an application for default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C., which was rejected on October 22, 2021, and was never challenged.

The Additional Public Prosecutor, J.P. Yagnik, representing the State of Maharashtra, submitted that the petitioner remained in judicial custody through valid remand orders, and procedural requirements under Section 309 of the Cr.P.C. were met through judicial roznamas directing his continued detention.

The court examined the applicability of Section 45 of the Cr.P.C. and observed, “In the given set of facts, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the petitioner was acting or purportedly acting in the capacity of his official duties when he planted that vehicle at Carmichael Road or when he entered into the conspiracy and executed the conspiracy to commit the murder of Mansukh Hiren.” The bench recorded that since the petitioner’s acts fell outside his official duties, no prior consent was required before his arrest.

Regarding the remand proceedings, the court noted that the charge-sheet was filed within the prescribed time limit, and the subsequent remand orders remained valid. The bench cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., observing, “Once a charge-sheet is filed within the stipulated time, the question of grant of default bail or statutory bail does not arise. Whether cognizance is taken or not is not material as far as Section 167 Cr.P.C. is concerned.”

The court also referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab, which held that Special Courts under the NIA Act have exclusive jurisdiction over scheduled offences. Applying this principle, the bench recorded, “The learned Special Judge under the NIA Act has the exclusive jurisdiction to try these offences.”

The court observed that the Special Judge was not required to examine every page of the charge-sheet before taking cognizance but only the summary and key documents. It stated, “The Court does not have to go through each and every document submitted along with the charge-sheet for taking cognizance.”

Also Read: Right To Life Includes Living Without Mental Trauma: J&K High Court Allows Termination Of 28-Week Pregnancy Of Minor Sexual Assault Victim

On the issue of alleged illegal detention from September 3 to September 7, 2021, the court found that remand orders had been communicated through judicial roznamas. It recorded, “The reason for adjournment is mentioned in the roznamas by the learned Special Judge. Pursuant to the noting in the roznama, the Sheristedar intimates the Jail Superintendent the next date for production of the accused before the Court and accordingly, on the next date the accused are produced. This is sufficient compliance with Section 309 of the Cr.P.C.”

The court held that the remand orders and judicial custody were legally valid and that procedural compliance under Section 309 of the Cr.P.C. had been met. The Special Court’s jurisdiction was upheld, and the petition for habeas corpus was dismissed.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Advocate Rounak Naik, assisted by Ms. Sajal Yadav, Ms. Aayushya Genuja, Harsh Ghangurde, Ms. Dakshata Dupare, and Nihal Rebello.

For Respondent No.1/NIA: Advocate Sandesh D. Patil, assisted by Chintan Shah, Prithviraj Gole, Krishnakant Deshmukh, Anusha Amin, and Ms. Divya Pawar.

For the State of Maharashtra: Additional Public Prosecutor J.P. Yagnik.

Case Title: Sachin Hindurao Waze v. Union of India & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:10477-DB
Case Number: Criminal Writ Petition No. 2485 of 2024
Bench: Justice Sarang V. Kotwal and Justice S. M. Modak

[Read/Download order]