A court-directed inquiry conducted by the state CID alleged that 14 policemen had connived in the custodial torture of Yunus and in disposing of his body. However, the government sanctioned the prosecution of only four policemen, who were charged with murder and destruction of evidence. Waze is accused No. 1. He and his three co-accused were supposedly ‘escorting’ Yunus to Aurangabad. A petition seeking that the government sanction the prosecution of the other 10 policemen is pending in the Supreme Court.

Also Read: Sachin Waze gets court's nod to execute power of attorney in connection with publication business

Poll

Who will win the Punjab Elections?

BJP 32.79%

AAP 42.62%

INC 24.59%

Submit

View All In Poll

Claims and reply

In his handwritten application filed on January 29, Waze had said that he was ‘suffering’ due to the pendency of the matter for the last 20 years. But Gharat has pointed out that Waze got bail in the case way back in June 2004. Also, Waze himself had caused delays in the case by challenging the orders passed by various courts. Currently, Gharat pointed out, Waze is in jail in another matter: the Antilia bomb scare case that took place in 2021.

Waze’s application stated that he only joined the Khwaja Yunus investigation on January 6, 2003. He claimed he had “no mechanism or authority to verify the identity of the already arrested terrorists.’’ He even claimed that “the terrorist Khwaja Yunus as appears in the photo in the case papers as well as in the newspapers was never handed over to me.” But, Gharat pointed out, the charge sheet against Waze has police witnesses stating that Waze had interrogated Yunus the whole day on January 6, 2003, starting from 12.30 pm.

Besides, both in his petition filed in 2005 before the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court, and in the judicial inquiry initially conducted into Yunus’s disappearance, Waze had said that he reported to the DCB, CID, Powai on the morning of January 5, 2003, and interrogated Yunus in the afternoon. Either his averment in his application, or these averments made before different forums have to be false, says Gharat’s reply.  These contradictions show that Waze “will not disclose the truth and will try to mislead the court,” read the reply.

Waze had also made personal remarks against Gharat in his application, accusing him of taking a stand that would “cause injustice’’ to him and everybody concerned and “cause further indefinite delay”. Objecting to these remarks, Gharat’s reply pointed out that in the past, too, Waze had made similar remarks against public prosecutors in this case.

Gharat’s reply includes objections filed by the police to Waze’s approver offer. In that, they trace the history of the case and point out that Waze’s original FIR filed against Yunus for allegedly having “escaped’’ was closed as per court orders as B Summary (maliciously false). They also recall that finding Waze uncooperative, the police had sought to conduct a narco-analysis test on him. But he managed to get a stay on it. This also creates a doubt that Waze would mislead the court, they state. Gharat has urged the court to reject Waze’s application.

Jan 29
Day plea was filed