Antilia terror scare: HC refuses bail to ex-cop Pradeep Sharma in NIA case, questions NIA probe

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Anil Singh, representing the NIA, had opposed the plea, stating that Sharma was the main conspirator in the ‘cold-blooded murder’ of Thane businessman Mansukh Hiran, who was considered a ‘weak link’ in the larger conspiracy of terrorising industrialist Mukesh Ambani’s family.

Senior advocate Aabad Ponda, appearing for Sharma, said his client was not involved in Hiran’s murder and the ‘NIA did not have any proof to show he was the main conspirator in the terror act’ of placing a gelatine-laden SUV car outside Ambani’s residence ‘Antilia’. The trial court had erred in rejecting bail to Sharma and he must be granted relief, said Ponda.

“At the outset, we express some anguish in the manner in which the NIA has investigated the charge of conspiracy of parking of the Scorpio vehicle near the residence of a prominent businessman and planting of gelatin sticks in the said vehicle, on February 24/25, 2021,” the bench observed, adding that the NIA chargesheet was ‘silent’ on with whom did the dismissed police officer, Sachin Waze, had conspired to place gelatin sticks and noted ‘the names of the co-conspirators were curiously not spelt out’.

“It appears that the NIA, after a detailed investigation, had not charge-sheeted the appellant for the offence pertaining to gelatin sticks laden Scorpio vehicle,” it observed, adding that ‘feeble attempt was made to connect Sharma with Waze only after the court questioned NIA as to whom Waze had conspired with’. “In a case of this magnitude, prima facie, it is highly impossible that Sachin Waze himself would be involved, without help, assistance or maybe, guidance of others,” it added.

The court said that there are several questions which are unanswered by the NIA, with respect to the case pertaining to parking of the Scorpio vehicle. “We hope and trust that the NIA, in right earnest, will investigate this aspect,” it said.

The bench also questioned Sharma’s presence in the office of then Mumbai CP (Param Bir Singh) on March 2 and 5, 2021 and noted “the reason for the appellant, a retired police officer, to be in the CP office including the CP’s chamber, is not forthcoming.” It added that “prima facie” the fact was that Sharma was present in the CP office “for albeit no plausible reason.” The NIA had said that on March 2, 2021, even Hiran was present in the CP office.

The court also referred to a statement by a cyber security expert — a witness in the case — who had said that Rs 5 lakh was given to the then Mumbai Police Commissioner to prepare a report dated March 9 that Telegram channel ‘Jaish-ul-Hind’ on which a post had appeared on February 27, 2021, claiming responsibility for the terror case. The expert had said that the same was resolved by the Special Cell, Delhi Police, and that the cellphone number linked with the said Telegram channel was found to be used from within the premises of Tihar Jail. “Why such a huge payment was made to the said witness i.e. cyber expert, what was the interest of the CP, is a grey area, for which there are no answers,” the bench noted.

The bench also said that the material on record pointed to the ‘complicity’ of Sharma in the murder of Mansukh Hiran. Dismissing the plea, the court said, “The possibility of the appellant, a retired police officer, having clout, tampering with the witnesses, cannot be ruled out.”