Mumbai, September 29
A special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court here on Tuesday granted bail to former police officer Sachin Vaze in the 2021 Antilia SUV bomb-scare case and the related death of businessman Mansukh Hiran, saying the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case of terrorism under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
Special Sessions Judge Chakor S. Baviskar said there was no material on record from which it could be inferred that the Ambani family was "terrorised" by the incident. The judge observed that the family's normal business activities had not been disrupted following the February 25, 2021 discovery of an explosives-laden SUV near industrialist Mukesh Ambani's south Mumbai residence, Antilia.
“There is absolutely nothing on record even to infer by any stretch of imagination that the Ambanis or anyone of them is/was, are/were ever terrorised in any manner,” the court noted.
The court questioned the NIA's application of the stringent UAPA in the matter, saying the agency had not recorded statements from any member of the Ambani family to demonstrate that they were terrorised. It also referred to the nature of the explosive material recovered from the SUV, stating the gelatin sticks located in the vehicle lacked detonators and therefore did not constitute the "means" necessary to qualify as a terrorist act under Section 15 of the UAPA.
On the related death of businessman Mansukh Hiran, who was in possession of the SUV and was found dead in a creek in neighbouring Thane on March 5, 2021, the court described the death as homicidal. However, it held that the killing was not shown to be the direct consequence of a terrorist act and therefore remained an independent offence under Section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code, which does not attract the special bail bar applicable under the UAPA.
The court allowed Mr Vaze's bail application. It made clear that the material presented by the prosecution did not satisfy the threshold required to sustain a terrorism charge under the UAPA.
Local significance and legal implications
The court's order narrows the legal characterisation of events that shocked Mumbai in early 2021. The ruling emphasises two points of law crucial to residents and legal observers:
- Threshold for UAPA: The judgement highlights that invocation of anti-terror provisions requires evidence that the alleged act was likely to strike terror in the minds of the purported victims, and that the accused possessed means to carry out such an act.
- Separate criminal liability: A homicidal death may be prosecuted under ordinary penal provisions distinct from UAPA charges; that distinction affects bail rights and investigative priorities.
Lawyers and civil-society commentators have routinely pointed out that UAPA provisions carry onerous bail conditions; the court's view that those provisions were not made out in this case is therefore legally and politically significant for future prosecutions invoking the Act.
Case timeline
| Key date | Event |
|---|---|
| 25 February 2021 | Explosives-laden SUV found parked near Antilia in south Mumbai |
| 5 March 2021 | Businessman Mansukh Hiran, in possession of the SUV, found dead in a creek in Thane |
| 29 September 2026 | Special NIA court grants bail to Sachin Vaze, finding UAPA not proved prima facie |
The order will be consequential for ongoing legal proceedings and may affect the course of investigation and prosecution strategy. The NIA has been the competent investigating agency in the matter since it invoked central anti-terror laws; the court's findings on evidentiary shortfalls address both investigative steps taken and the legal character of the acts alleged.
Residents of Mumbai, particularly those in south Mumbai and adjoining Thane, followed the case closely when it first broke in 2021 because of the unusual discovery of explosives near one of the city's most prominent private residences and the subsequent violent death of a Mumbai businessman.
The court record and order were cited in the reporting of the case; statements in the judgement about the absence of recorded testimony from Ambani family members and the nature of the recovered gelatine sticks were explicit in the court's reasoning.
