In the Sachin Waze bail appeal, the Bombay High Court said in open court: “Special court’s order is quashed and set aside… Appeal by NIA is allowed.” The detailed judgment in the 2021 Antilia bomb scare and Mansukh Hiran murder case is yet to be made available.
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Thursday, November 5, 2026, quashed the special court order that had granted bail to former Mumbai Police officer Sachin Waze, an accused in the 2021 Antilia bomb scare and Mansukh Hiran murder case, and allowed the appeal filed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) [National Investigation Agency v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.].
A Division Bench of Justice Girish S. Kulkarni and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale pronounced only the operative part of the verdict in open court.
The case, as the prosecution tells it
According to the prosecution, an explosives-laden Scorpio carrying gelatin sticks and a threat letter was found near Antilia, the Mumbai residence of industrialist Mukesh Ambani, on February 25, 2021. Mansukh Hiran, a businessman who had claimed that the vehicle had been stolen from him a week earlier, was found dead in a creek in Thane on March 5, 2021.
Waze initially investigated the case before it moved to the State Anti-Terrorism Squad and then to the NIA in March 2021. He was arrested on March 13, 2021. Others arrested include former encounter specialist Pradeep Sharma, constable Vinayak Shinde, bookie Naresh Gore, API Riyazuddin Qazi and Sunil Mane. The accused face charges of murder and offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
The ruling
Pronouncing the verdict, the Bench said:
“Special court’s order is quashed and set aside… Appeal by NIA is allowed.”
The NIA had challenged the special court’s order of September 29, 2026, granting bail to Waze. The High Court had earlier stayed his release while the appeal was pending and had reserved its verdict after hearing both sides.
What the special court had said
While granting bail, the special court had questioned whether terrorism charges under the UAPA applied to Waze. It had noted that the Ambani family continued with its usual routine and that there was nothing on record to show that any member of the family had been terrorised, observing that no witness statements from the family had been recorded.
Arguments in appeal
Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, appearing for the NIA, argued that the special judge had passed an erroneous order, pointing out that statements of the security personnel at Antilia had in fact been recorded. The NIA alleges that Waze parked the vehicle outside Antilia to stage-manage a terror plot for extortion, hoping to solve it himself and restore his image as a “super cop”.
It further alleges that Hiran was eliminated as a weak link when he refused to take the blame. The agency also told the Court that Waze owned more than five high-end cars and had stayed for over 100 days in a five-star hotel while drawing a monthly salary of about Rs 90,000.
For Waze, Senior Advocate V.M. Thorat argued that even if the NIA’s case were accepted in full, staging a scare to regain professional clout would not amount to a terrorist act under Section 15 of the UAPA. He submitted that an attempt to intimidate a single family with gelatin sticks without a detonator did not strike terror in the public at large, and that the alleged elimination of Hiran would at most amount to destruction of evidence rather than terrorism.
Thorat also sought continuation of bail on the grounds of Waze’s custody of about five years and parity with co-accused. The High Court, after considering the rival submissions, allowed the NIA’s appeal.
The allegations against Waze and the other accused are yet to be tested at trial. The High Court’s ruling concerns bail alone, and Waze, like every accused, is presumed innocent until proven guilty. LawChakra expresses no view on the merits of the case.
Why the judgment matters
The ruling turns on a contested question at the heart of the case: whether an alleged scare aimed at one family, and the alleged killing that followed, can be prosecuted as terrorism under the UAPA, where the bar for bail is far stricter than under ordinary criminal law. By setting aside the special court’s order, the High Court has sent Waze back to custody pending trial. Its detailed reasons, once available, will show how it weighed the special court’s view on the UAPA charges and the defence plea of long custody.
Case Title: National Investigation Agency v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Bench: Justice Girish S. Kulkarni and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale
Date of Verdict: November 5, 2026
For the NIA: ASG Anil Singh with Advocates Chintan Shah, Amogh Singh and Adarsh Vyas
For Sachin Waze: Senior Advocate V.M. Thorat with Advocates Sajal Yadav, Shalabh Saxena, Aarti Kalekar, Harsh Ghangurde, Raj Raut and others
Status: NIA appeal allowed; special court’s bail order of September 29, 2026 set aside; detailed judgment awaited