On Wednesday 1st June 2022, a special CBI court allowed dismissed Mumbai police officer Sachin Vaze to turn approver and depose as a prosecution witness against other accused including Maharashtra’s former home minister Anil Deshmukh. The order has come in connection with a corruption case against Deshmukh and others. The court ordered Waze to appear before it on June 7.
Vaze had filed an application before the special CBI court. In his plea, he had claimed that he had cooperated with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) before and after his arrest, following which his confessional statement was recorded before a magistrate under provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
Maharashtra | Special CBI court has approved the application of dismissed police officer Sachin Waze to turn ‘approver’ against other accused including former home minister Anil Deshmukh in an alleged corruption case. The court has ordered Waze to appear before it on June 7
— ANI (@ANI) June 1, 2022
In response to this, the CBI had approved Vaze’s plea, subject to certain conditions. Special judge DP Shingade approved Vaze’s plea. The judge said, “Your application is awarded to you, but subject to certain conditions.” According to this order, Sachin Vaze can depose as a prosecution witness in the corruption case.
Sachin Vaze is in judicial custody for three cases. The first one is the case of an explosives-laden vehicle found near industrialist Mukesh Ambani’s residence in south Mumbai and the murder of Thane businessman Mansukh Hiran. The second one is the CBI case in which he sought pardon. It is a preliminary inquiry of rupees 100 crore corruption allegations against former home minister Anil Deshmukh that were raised by Mumbai’s former Police Commissioner Param Bir Singh. The third one is a money laundering case against Anil Deshmukh and others. Deshmukh is also under probe by the ED.
The court has extended Vaze’s custody by 14 days. Sachin Vaze was arrested in March 2021. A special court recently rejected his bail calling him highly influential. The court had also noted that the possibility of tampering with evidence cannot be ruled out.
