- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- "Huge Political Influence"- Sachin...
"Huge Political Influence"- Sachin Waze's Brother Files Habeas Corpus Plea In Bombay High Court Against His Arrest In Ambani House Explosives Scare
Sharmeen Hakim
15 March 2021 7:52 PM IST
Suspended Mumbai Police officer Sachin Waze, through his brother, Sudharm has filed a habeas corpus petition in the Bombay High Court calling his arrest by the National Investigating Agency "illegal," and seeking his immediate release from custody. Waze was arrested by the National Investigating Agency on Saturday, in connection with his involvement in the explosives-laden...
Suspended Mumbai Police officer Sachin Waze, through his brother, Sudharm has filed a habeas corpus petition in the Bombay High Court calling his arrest by the National Investigating Agency "illegal," and seeking his immediate release from custody.
Waze was arrested by the National Investigating Agency on Saturday, in connection with his involvement in the explosives-laden vehicle and threat letter found near Mukesh Ambani's house, in Mumbai, on February 25, 2021. He was remanded to NIA's custody till March 25, the next day.
In a petition filed on Monday under Article 266, his brother states that there were several lapses in Waze arrest, and violations of CrPC provisions. He was not served with a 41(A) notice under the CrPC, a copy of the FIR wasn't given, neither were the reasons for arresting him explained, it claims.
The brother has alleged "ulterior motives" and "political agenda" for Waze's arrest by the central agency.
"The haste in which the Petitioner's brother was arrested clearly shows some ulterior motives and huge political influence and interference with the sole intent to use the Petitioner's brother as a scapegoat to further certain political agendas of some big interested parties."
The Petitioner's fundamental rights have been severely violated and the Petitioner fears for his brothers' life and limb as the Respondent officers can go to any extent to extract an illegal and false confession from the Petitioner's brother.
The brother therefore prays that Waze be produced before the court and NIA justifies his detention.
This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an order/direction to the Respondent directing them to produce the Petitioner's brother before this Hon'ble Court and to justify his detention in accordance with procedure established by law and that after hearing the parties;
The petition cites the judgement of the Supreme Court of India in the case of D.K Basu V/s. State of West Bengal which provides a checklist for an impending arrest.
It further cites the Supreme Court judgement in Joginder Kumar v/s State of U.P. 1994 AIR 1349, 1994 SCC (4) 260 where the court held that .."To strike the balance between the needs of law enforcement on the one hand and the protection of the citizen from oppression and injustice at the hands of the law-enforcement machinery on the other is a perennial problem of statecraft. The pendulum over the years has swung to the right."
Allegations on the facts of the case
The petition alleges that Waze was arrested following certain "false," "frivolous" and "concocted" allegations by Vimla Hiren that he was responsible for her husband, Mansukh Hiren's death. Mansukh, the last person to be identified in possession of the explosives laden car, was found dead in a creek in Thane on March 5.
"The present case of the death of Mr. Mansukh Hiren became a sensational topic for the media and the society due to which the false and baseless allegations made by Mrs. Vimla Hiren against the Petitioner's brother were paid heed to by the ATS, Mumbai and FIR bearing No. 12 of 2021 came to be registered." The petition states about a second FIR registered solely to investigate Hiren's death.
It further claims that Waze was cooperating with the investigation and had been to the NIA office on Saturday, However after being interrogated for over "10 hours" he was suddenly arrest.
"That the Petitioner's brother had no intention to abscond or not cooperate with the investigation of the Respondent. In fact, the Petitioner's brother even visited the office of the Respondent for cooperating with their investigation. If the Petitioner's brother had any intention to flee from justice then he would have never visited the office of the Respondent." It states