A special NIA court granted Sachin Waze bail while questioning the prosecution’s failure to record statements from the Ambani family in the Antilia case.
What Happened
On Tuesday, 29 September 2026, a special National Investigation Agency court in Mumbai granted bail to former police officer Sachin Waze in the 2021 Antilia bomb scare and Mansukh Hiran murder case.
The order was passed by Special Judge Chakor S Baviskar. After the order was pronounced, the NIA sought a stay, stating that it intended to challenge the decision before the High Court. The special court rejected the request.
A central part of the order concerned the prosecution’s reliance on terrorism charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The court said that, at the bail stage, the prosecution had not established a prima facie case of terrorism against Waze.
The court also questioned whether there was material to show that the alleged act had actually created terror. According to PTI’s report of the order, the judge noted that there was nothing on record to infer that the Ambani family had been “terrorised” and questioned whose mind Waze was allegedly seeking to create terror in.
The court’s most pointed criticism concerned the absence of statements from the Ambani family. It noted that no statement under Section 161 or Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 had been recorded from any member of the family or their close relatives.
The judge observed that the persons whom the prosecution’s case identified as the targets had not been examined. The order described the omission as “certainly precarious to the credibility of the prosecution case”, as reported by Bar & Bench.
The court also noted the practical proximity between the NIA office and Antilia, observing that they were “literally just wall to wall adjacent”. The judge’s reported criticism focused on the absence of statements from the alleged targets, without making a finding that the NIA had acted in bad faith.
The court separately considered the death of Mansukh Hiran. While acknowledging that Hiran’s death was a homicide, it concluded at the bail stage that the death was not the direct outcome of a terrorist act. The court treated the murder allegation separately under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Waze has remained in custody since his arrest in March 2021. The court also relied on parity, noting that other co-accused alleged to have participated in the conspiracy and its execution had been granted bail. The court further considered the extensive scope of the proceedings and the likelihood that the case would not conclude in the near future.
Background & Context
On 25 February 2021, an explosives-laden SUV was found near industrialist Mukesh Ambani’s residence, Antilia, in south Mumbai.
The vehicle belonged to Mansukh Hiran, a Thane businessman who had earlier reported it stolen. Hiran’s body was subsequently found in a creek in Thane on 5 March 2021.
The NIA investigated the vehicle incident and Hiran’s death as part of the same alleged conspiracy. The prosecution accuses Waze and others of forming a “terrorist gang” and entering into a criminal conspiracy between February and March 2021.
Waze has remained in custody since March 2021, while the wider criminal proceedings concerning the Antilia and Hiran cases continue.
In an earlier bail proceeding, the NIA had argued that Mukesh Ambani and his wife were “terror-stricken” following the February 2021 incident. That was an earlier prosecution submission in a separate bail proceeding and was not part of the 29 September 2026 order.
Key Details
Court/Forum: Special NIA Court, Mumbai
Judge: Special Judge Chakor S Baviskar
Date of Order: 29 September 2026
Case Title: Sachin Waze v. State of Maharashtra
Sections/Acts Invoked: Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act; Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code
Parties: Applicant Sachin Waze; Respondent State of Maharashtra, prosecuted by the NIA
Counsel: Advocates Sajal Yadav and Arti Kalekar for Waze; Special Public Prosecutor Sunil Gonsalves for the NIA, as reported by Bar & Bench
Bail Terms: Waze must furnish a personal bond of ₹1 lakh with a local surety and is barred from Brihan Mumbai, Navi Mumbai, Raigad, Thane and Palghar until material witness evidence is recorded.
Current Status: Bail granted; the NIA’s request for a stay was rejected; the NIA intends to approach the High Court; wider proceedings continue.
Why It Matters
The order turns on a basic evidentiary question: what material is available to support a prima facie terrorism case at the bail stage?
For the court, the absence of statements from the people identified by the prosecution as the targets was significant. The court’s observation that the NIA’s office and Antilia were “literally just wall to wall adjacent” placed the omission in a practical context. The concern was not simply that statements were missing, but that the alleged targets were readily accessible to the investigating agency.
That does not mean the prosecution’s entire case has been rejected. Nor does the bail order determine whether Waze is guilty or innocent. It reflects the court’s assessment of the material available at this stage of the proceedings.
The order also illustrates the distinction between a terrorism allegation and a separate murder allegation. The court considered Hiran’s death to be a homicide but did not treat it, on the material before it at the bail stage, as the direct outcome of a terrorist act. The murder charge therefore remained analytically separate from the UAPA question.
The decision also demonstrates the importance of parity and prolonged custody in lengthy criminal proceedings. The court took note of bail granted to other co-accused and of Waze’s custody since March 2021, while also considering the extensive scope of the case and the likelihood of a lengthy trial.
For law students and practitioners, the order provides a useful illustration of how courts scrutinise the prima facie threshold under the UAPA’s stringent bail framework. It also shows how evidentiary gaps, the nature of the alleged offence, parity with co-accused and the duration of custody can interact at the bail stage.
The NIA’s decision to challenge the order means that the issues remain open for consideration by a higher court. The bail order should therefore be understood as a stage-specific assessment of the prosecution material, not as a final determination of the underlying criminal case.
Reactions
Special Judge Chakor S Baviskar, in the bail order as reported by Bar & Bench, described the absence of statements from the Ambani family as “certainly precarious to the credibility of the prosecution case”. The judge also noted that the NIA office and Antilia were “literally just wall to wall adjacent”.
The NIA sought a stay on the bail order after it was pronounced and stated that it intended to challenge the decision before the High Court. The special court rejected the request for a stay.
Closing
The 29 September bail order places the prosecution’s evidentiary record under close scrutiny, particularly its failure to record statements from the people identified as the targets of the alleged terror-related conduct.
But the order does not decide the wider criminal case. Waze has been granted bail subject to conditions, the NIA intends to challenge the decision, and the underlying proceedings remain pending.
The significance of the ruling therefore lies in what it says about the material required at the bail stage under the UAPA, rather than in any final conclusion about the guilt or innocence of the accused.
Opportunities don’t wait. Neither should you.
Join 1 Lakh+ law students connected with Lexibal and stay updated with internships, opportunities, competitions and important updates.
Join WhatsApp Channel
