Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

A division bench comprising Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Anish Dayal dismissed a plea filed by Former Mumbai Cop Sachin Waze seeking quashing of the prosecution sanction under UAPA in connection with the Antilia bomb scare case.

The court was hearing a plea filed by Sachin Hinurao Waze seeking to strike down Section 15(1) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (UAPA) for being ultra vires Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. He also sought the quashing of the Central government’s order dated September 2, 2021.

While dismissing the petition the division bench noted that the plea lacked territorial jurisdiction.

Senior Advocate Santosh Paul, appearing for Waze, argued that the Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction to hear the plea under Article 226 (2) of the Indian Constitution and that because the impugned order granting sanction to prosecute Waze was issued by a New Delhi authority, a substantial cause of action has arisen within the high court's jurisdiction.

Paul also argued that the issuance of a sanction to prosecute Waze under UAPA affected him immediately as the invocation of UAPA removed the dual limitation on the grant of bail as well as the right to be released on statutory bail under Section 167(2) CrPC.

On the contrary, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S.V. Raju appearing for the Central government submitted that the investigation is based on three incidents, first the recovery of the vehicle, second the threat letter, and third the murder of the co-accused.

It was further submitted that the National Investigating Agency (NIA) was investigating each of these aspects since March 8, 2021, and that the charge sheet was filed in Mumbai, the cognizance after the sanction order was taken in Mumbai and the trial also was being conducted in Mumbai.

ASG Raju also argued that the issue of sanction by the Central government was no longer relevant because the trial court in Mumbai had already taken cognizance of it.

On perusal of the first information report (FIR) filed on February 25, 2021, Court noted that Waze was charged for offences punishable under Sections 286, 465, 473, 506 (2), and 120 B IPC and Section 4 (A)(B)(i) of the Indian Explosives Substance Act, 1908.

Noting that the Central Government's order granting sanction for prosecution under Section 45 (1) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 must be considered in conjunction with the investigations and proceedings to which it relates, the division bench stated that the courts in Mumbai would have the natural and logical jurisdiction to decide the issues raised in this writ petition.

Therefore, the court ordered that the writ petition is dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the relief sought. Accordingly, the court dismissed the present petition as "infructuous".

Case Title: Sachin Hinurao Waze vs. Union of India & Ors.