2003 ‘custodial death’ case | ‘Prosecutor not required to be guided on every petty application’: Court rejects plea by Waze

Waze, who was serving with the Mumbai Police, filed a discharge application in the case a few months ago.

Written by Sadaf Modak

Mumbai | September 22, 2025 12:30 AM IST

3 min read

‘Prosecutor not required to be guided on every petty application’: Court rejects plea by sachin Waze

Dismissed police officer Sachin Waze. (File photo)

A PUBLIC prosecutor is not required to be guided on every petty application by the law and judiciary department, a sessions court said while rejecting an application by dismissed police officer Sachin Waze in the 2003 Khwaja Yunus “custodial death” case, seeking that a reply be filed to his discharge plea by the Superintendent of the state CID, the investigating agency in the case.

Waze, who was serving with the Mumbai Police, filed a discharge application in the case a few months ago, claiming that there was no proof to show his involvement in the death of Yunus, a 27-year-old software engineer, who allegedly died in police custody during interrogation in the 2002 Ghatkopar blast case. The court then directed that the “prosecuting agency” file a reply to the application.

Waze sought that a reply should be filed by the SP, CID, claiming that the response filed by the special public prosecutor (SPP) Pradip Gharat is “contrary” to the CID’s case. Waze cited a 2018 government circular, which said that law officers are directed to not give consent or make any statement on their own accord and that if any statement is to be made while arguing a case, written instructions should be taken from the administrative department concerned or the competent government officer.

“In the present case, the SPP has not given any such consent and the Remembrancer of Legal Affairs of the Joint Secretary, law and judiciary department… is not required to guide the public prosecutor on every petty application. Once the chargesheet is filed, the public prosecutor has to assist to the court at every step right from the haring of miscellaneous applications, framing of charge, recording of evidence till the final arguments with honest and true views in respect of the fact and law placed before the court,” additional sessions judge AP Kulkarni said.

While Waze had raised the issue that “prosecuting agency” is not a term referred to in law, the court said that it means designations, including public prosecutors, special public prosecutors.

The court said that prosecutors are the “captains of their cases” once the chargesheet is filed and they cannot be compelled to file a separate response to pleas filed by the accused. It said that a separate response from the state CID is not required to be called for.

The trial in the case against Waze and three other policemen began in 2018 but has been on hold since.

From the homepage