A Mumbai court on Tuesday (September 30, 2026) granted bail to Sachin Vaze in the Antilia bomb scare case and directed him to reside outside Mumbai, Navi Mumbai, Raigad, Thane, and Palghar. The court also noted that the National Investigation Agency (NIA) had not recorded statements from Mukesh Ambani and his family members.

The court directed Vaze to furnish a surety of ₹1 lakh. It said that he may enter these districts only to attend trials. After the court proceedings, the order stated that he shall leave the jurisdiction and report to a police station when he returns.

In its order, the court said the NIA had not recorded a statement under Section 161 or Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from any member of the Ambani family. The order noted that the NIA office and Antilia, the residence of the Ambanis, are near each other. It asked what stopped the NIA from recording a statement.

The order said the NIA had waited for a “Shubh Muhurat” for years to record a statement. It said nobody knew which Muhurat the agency awaited after a gap of years. It said a statement recorded later would lose spontaneity and value.

The court said the material did not show that Vaze demanded money from the Ambanis. It said the NIA presumed that Vaze wanted to create terror in their minds. It said the NIA had not recorded a statement from any member or relative of the Ambani family. It said the family continued with business and life as before. It said nobody lodged a complaint or came forward to give a statement.

The agency’s case is that Vaze had been under suspension, was reinstated, and targeted the Ambani family to regain status and earn money. It said he parked a vehicle with explosives near Antilia. It said a note in the vehicle named Nita Ambani and Mukesh Ambani. The court said the agency did not show whose minds Vaze wanted to create terror in.

On Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, the court said that a threat to an industrialist or a demand for money from him does not fall under the Section. It said the Section covers acts that threaten the unity, integrity, security, or sovereignty of India. It noted that nobody was threatened, nobody parted with anything, and neither gain nor loss occurred.