Bombay HC Cancels Sachin Waze’s Bail In Antilia Bomb Scare Case, Quashes Special NIA Court Order

The Bombay High Court cancelled Sachin Waze’s bail in the Antilia bomb scare and Mansukh Hiran murder cases, allowing the NIA’s appeal

PGurus Newsdesk

November 5, 2026

Waze’s counsel said the gelatin sticks lacked detonators and meant only a scare, an argument the High Court did not accept

The Special NIA Court had questioned the applicability of UAPA terror charges when it granted bail in September

The Bombay High Court on Thursday set aside and cancelled the bail granted to dismissed Mumbai Police officer Sachin Waze in connection with the 2021 Antilia explosives scare and the murder of businessman Mansukh Hiran.

Allowing the appeal filed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA), a division bench quashed the order of the Special NIA Court, ensuring Waze will remain in custody at Thane Central Prison.

The NIA had moved the High Court against the September 2026 Special Court order that granted Waze relief. Appearing for the agency, Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh argued that the special judge had passed an erroneous order by ignoring key statements recorded from security personnel at Antilia.

In late September 2026, the Special NIA Court had granted Waze bail, questioning whether UAPA terror charges applied and noting the absence of recorded statements from the Ambani family. Immediately after that order, the NIA obtained an urgent stay from the High Court, which kept Waze in prison.

The NIA alleged that Waze himself parked the gelatin-laden SUV outside businessman Mukesh Ambani’s residence to stage a terror threat, with the aim of solving the case himself and regaining lost clout. It further alleged that when vehicle owner Mansukh Hiran refused to take the fall, he was eliminated as a weak link.

Senior Advocate VM Thorat, appearing for Waze, argued that the gelatin sticks were planted without detonators and were meant only to create a scare, not to cause mass terror under Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). He also cited his client’s long incarceration since March 2021.

The High Court accepted the NIA’s contention, ruling that the grounds on which the Special Court granted relief were unsustainable and upholding the strict restrictions under the UAPA.

For all the latest updates, download PGurus App.