The Bombay High Court is set to rule on August 23 on a bail plea submitted by dismissed police officer Sachin Waze, who has been jailed since March 2022 in a corruption case involving former state home minister Anil Deshmukh and others.
Waze, currently held in Taloja Central Prison, sent his handwritten bail petition to the court.
A bench comprising Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande heard Waze’s plea, in which he argued for his release, stating that he had turned approver in the case. He pointed out that while he remains in jail, the other accused have been granted bail.
Waze’s advocate, Aabad Ponda, argued that keeping him in custody violates his fundamental rights and that he should be granted protection under the Maharashtra Witness Protection and Security Act, 2017. Ponda emphasized that since Waze is an approver, no chargesheet would be filed against him, nor would he face conviction or imprisonment. He also noted that with the other accused out on bail, the trial is unlikely to begin soon.
Waze’s plea cites Section 306(4) of the law, which pertains to granting a pardon to an accused who turns approver and supports the prosecution during the trial. Waze approached the High Court after his bail was rejected twice by the special CBI court.
Waze, who was an Assistant Police Inspector with the Mumbai police, was initially arrested by the National Investigation Agency in 2021 in connection with the Antilia bomb scare and the Mansukh Hiran murder case. The CBI and Enforcement Directorate (ED) later filed corruption and money laundering charges against Anil Deshmukh, his aides, and others, leading to the arrests of Deshmukh and Waze, among others.
Waze applied to become an approver in the case, a request that was accepted by both the CBI and ED. While he was granted bail in the ED case, his bail plea in the CBI case was rejected. The CBI court, in its order, stated that “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.”
