The Bombay High Court will pass an order on August 23 on a plea by dismissed cop Sachin Waze, who has been in jail since March 2022 in an alleged corruption case linked to former state home minister Anil Deshmukh and others. Waze had sent the bail petition hand written from the Taloja central prison.
A bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande was hearing the plea by Waze seeking release from prison contending that he had turned approver in the case, and that he was the only one languishing in jail, whereas the other accused were out on bail.
His advocate Aabad Ponda submitted that keeping him behind bars was violation of his fundamental rights. He should be awarded protection under the Maharashtra Witness Protection and Security Act, 2017. Ponda added that Waze is an approver hence no chargesheet will be filed against him. Neither will he be convicted nor will he go to jail. Considering everyone else is out on bail, the trial will also not commence soon.
Waze has sought release citing provision of Section 306(4). The section deals with granting pardon to an accused, who decides to turn approver and support the prosecution during trial.
Waze approached the HC after the special CBI court rejected his bail plea on two occasions.
In 2001, Waze, then an Assistant Police Inspector of Mumbai police was arrested by the National Investigation Agency in relation to the bomb scare at the Ambani house, Antilia and businessman Mansukh Hiran murder case.
.jpg)
The CBI and ED registered cases against Anil Deshmukh, his personal secretary and personal assistants and others for corruption and money laundering respectively. The agencies then arrested Deshmukh, Waze and others.
Waze then made an application seeking to turn approver in the case which was accepted by both the agencies. He was granted bail in the ED case but his bail was rejected in the CBI case.
While rejecting his plea, the CBI court said: “… an approver who has been granted pardon has to be detained till the termination of trial and cannot be granted bail before that. The object, purpose and intention behind the provision is not to punish him for having agreed to give evidence for the State, but to protect him from the wrath of the co-accused since he has chosen to expose their deeds and has thrown himself open to attack by the co-accused.”
