SACHIN HINDURAO WAZE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Rounak Naik, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Sandesh Patil, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1/NIA and Mr. Yagnik, learned APP for the State.

(2.) This is a writ petition praying for writ of habeas corpus alleging that the Petitioner's detention is illegal. The Petitioner is seeking his release forthwith. Though, there are many grounds raised in the petition, learned counsel for the Petitioner restricted his arguments to the grounds which are noted and considered in the following discussion.

(3.) Before referring to the submissions made by the learned counsel on behalf of the Petitioner, it is necessary to mention the background as to how the Petitioner came to be arraigned as an accused. There were three separate incidents, apparently having no connection with each other; however, as the events unfolded subsequently, it was realised that all these three incidents were interconnected and the Petitioner was a common factor involved in all these three incidents. These incidents are as follows: