Antilia bomb-scare case: Court rejects Sachin Vaze’s plea for statements of ex-colleagues, home food

A special court hearing the Antilia security scare case on Wednesday rejected a plea by dismissed policeman Sachin Vaze seeking that the prosecution supplyhim with statements that it recorded during his police custody interrogation, among other documents.

These documents had not been supplied with the charge sheet, he said, adding the prosecution was “suppressing” them as they could help him in his defence.

Vaze denied home-cooked food

In a separate development, the court through an order denied home food facility to Vaze. The ex-cop had said that prison food was not helping with his diabetes and that his vision was deteriorating.

The court said that the jail was providing him a balanced diet and there was no need for home food. The court also considered that the jail submitted that there could be safety concerns for Vaze as it has no facility to check the food that arrives.

Vaze writes to the court

On Wednesday, Vaze, through a written submission informed the court that he has no objection to his co-accused dismissed inspector Sunil Mane’s plea to become a prosecution witness against the accused, including himself, in the case. Vaze had initially submitted through his lawyer that he would oppose the plea of Mane. This, however, comes after the National Investigation Agency told the court in its response that it does not want Mane as an approver. Subsequently, Vaze himself had made a plea to become an approver. This plea is pending.

Vaze claims he was confronted during police custody

Before his plea for supplying documents was decided against him, Vaze had argued in person before the court. He told the court that he was confronted during police custody with persons he had treated as suspects when he had investigated the Antilia case during its initial probe.

He told the court that their statements were not part of the charge sheet. He had told in his plea that these documents might be “suppressed” by the NIA as the persons could appear as defence witnesses for him. His plea had also submitted that it is a mandate of law to supply unrelied documents and their non-supply is causing unpreparedness for his defence.

The NIA had argued against supply of these documents and pointed out that its probe in the case is ongoing and supplying these may hamper it. A detailed order on the rejection is yet to be available.