- Case
- SACHIN HINDURAO WAZE v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH S.P. (Bombay High Court, 06-03-2025)
- Law
- Code of Criminal Procedure, Indian Penal Code, Explosive Substances Act, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, National Investigation Agency Act.
Facts: Sachin Waze, the petitioner, filed a writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus, alleging illegal detention. The case involves three interconnected incidents: the theft of Mansukh Hiren's Scorpio, the finding of a Scorpio with explosives near a prominent industrialist's residence, and the death of Mansukh Hiren. Waze, an investigating officer in the initial stages, was later arrested by the NIA. The petitioner argued that his arrest was illegal because the State Government's consent under Section 45 of the Cr.P.C. was not obtained, and that there were irregularities in the remand orders.
Procedural Posture: This is a criminal writ petition filed in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, seeking a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner challenges the legality of his detention.
Issue: (1) Was the arrest of the petitioner illegal due to the lack of prior consent from the State Government under Section 45 of the Cr.P.C.? (2) Was the initial remand by the Special Judge invalid? (3) Was the detention between the filing of the charge-sheet and the taking of cognizance illegal due to the absence of a valid remand order under Section 167 of the Cr.P.C.? (4) Was the remand during the pendency of the trial illegal due to the absence of a warrant signed by the Presiding Judge, as per Section 309 of the Cr.P.C.?
Holding: The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner's detention was not illegal.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that (1) Section 45 of the Cr.P.C. protection applies only when the act was done in the discharge of official duties, which was not the case here, as the petitioner's actions of planting explosives and conspiring to murder Mansukh Hiren could not be considered as part of his official duties. Therefore, NIA was not required to obtain consent from the State Government before effecting his arrest. (2) The Special Judge under the NIA Act had the exclusive jurisdiction to try the scheduled offences, including those under the Explosive Substances Act, as per Section 13(1) of the NIA Act, relying on Bikramjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab. (3) Citing Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain Versus State of Maharashtra and Another, the court held that the filing of the charge-sheet is sufficient compliance with Section 167(2)(a)(ii) of the Cr.P.C., and the accused remains in custody even if cognizance is delayed. (4) The court found that Section 309 of the Cr.P.C. does not mandate a warrant signed by the Presiding Judge for each remand, and the procedure followed by the Special Judge, including the Roznama entries and intimation to jail authorities, constituted sufficient compliance.
