Sachin Waze: Bombay HC sets aside bail, allows NIA appeal

The Bombay High Court on 5 November 2026 set aside the bail granted to dismissed police officer Sachin Waze in the Antilia explosives scare and Mansukh Hiran murder case, allowing an appeal by the National Investigation Agency (NIA), The Times of India reported. The decision overturned the special NIA court’s order of 29 September 2026.

A bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Neela Gokhale pronounced the decision after reserving orders on 16 October, according to The Times of India. The High Court had already stayed the bail order while considering the agency’s challenge. Hindustan Times reported that the stay, issued on 30 September, had prevented Waze’s release from jail.

The appeal concerned whether Waze should receive bail while facing prosecution, not a final determination of guilt. Hindustan Times reported that the allegations against him remain to be proved at trial.

The Times of India said the reasoned order would follow. Its account establishes the appeal’s outcome and the arguments made by both sides, but does not set out the bench’s full reasons for reversing bail.

Dispute over the anti-terror charges

The special NIA court had granted bail after finding that an offence of a “terrorist act” was not prima facie evident under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, or UAPA, according to The Times of India. Prima facie means an initial assessment of the material, rather than a conclusion reached after a full trial.

The NIA challenged that assessment. Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh argued that the special court had not considered the chargesheet in its proper perspective, The Times of India reported. A chargesheet sets out the investigating agency’s accusations and the material relied on to prosecute them; it is not proof of guilt.

A judgment extract published by Indian Kanoon in The National Investigation Agency v. The State of Maharashtra and another records Singh’s reliance on Section 43D(5) of the UAPA. That provision restricts bail for specified offences where the court, after examining the case diary or police report, finds reasonable grounds to believe that the accusation is prima facie true.

According to the extract, Singh submitted that the prosecution material had to be considered as a whole and that the statutory restriction applied to Waze. These were the agency’s submissions; the available extract does not contain the High Court’s final analysis of them.

The competing arguments also concerned the absence of detonators. Waze’s counsel, VM Thorat, argued that this meant the incident did not constitute a terrorist act and did not attract the UAPA’s stringent provisions, The Times of India reported.

Singh disputed that interpretation. According to The Times of India, he argued that the absence of a detonator did not prevent the alleged conduct from falling within the law’s definition of a terrorist act. He submitted that threatening the Ambani family was intended to send a wider message capable of threatening national or economic security, or striking terror in the community.

The events underlying the prosecution

The case concerns the discovery of a Mahindra Scorpio containing gelatin sticks and a threat letter outside industrialist Mukesh Ambani’s residence, Antilia, on 25 February 2021, Hindustan Times reported. The newspaper said the vehicle belonged to Mansukh Hiran, a Thane auto-parts dealer who had reported it stolen a week earlier.

Hindustan Times reported that Hiran’s body was found in a creek in Thane on 5 March 2021. According to its account, the NIA took over the explosives investigation on 8 March 2021 and subsequently investigated Hiran’s murder and the vehicle theft as parts of an alleged conspiracy.

The prosecution’s position is that the theft, placement of the vehicle and Hiran’s murder were connected, Hindustan Times reported. Its account said the agency’s chargesheet named Waze, former police officer Pradeep Sharma and eight others, alleging involvement at different stages. Those accusations remain distinct from findings established at trial.

The High Court judgment extract available through Indian Kanoon records Waze’s arrest on 13 March 2021 and the filing of the first chargesheet on 3 September 2021. The Times of India reported on 5 November 2026 that he had remained in custody since his arrest.

Earlier bail proceedings and the trial dispute

The Indian Kanoon extract records that Waze applied for regular bail on 18 April 2023 and that the trial court rejected the application on 16 September 2023. In recounting that earlier decision, the extract describes the special judge’s preliminary assessment of material linking Waze to the vehicle and Hiran, alongside concerns about possible interference with witnesses and evidence.

The extract also records a supplementary chargesheet filed on 29 May 2026 and the framing of charges on 1 August 2026. Framing charges identifies the accusations to be tried; it does not establish that the accused committed the offences.

On 7 August 2026, the High Court permitted Waze to approach the trial court with a fresh bail application, according to the extract. That application resulted in the September bail order subsequently challenged by the NIA.

Singh argued that permission to apply again did not itself justify a different decision on bail, the extract records. He also questioned how the special judge could grant bail less than two months after framing charges that included UAPA offences.

For Waze, the length of his detention was a separate ground for release, The Times of India reported. Thorat also submitted that the trial could not begin until all forensic reports were available.

The NIA disputed that procedural obstacle. According to The Times of India, Singh said charges had been framed and the trial could begin soon. The report did not identify a trial commencement date or explain how the High Court resolved the parties’ disagreement over the outstanding forensic reports.