Mumbai, March 11 -- The Bombay High Court on Tuesday dismissed an appeal filed by former Mumbai police officer Pradeep Sharma, once known as an 'encounter specialist', challenging a special court's order that had refused to discharge him in the murder cases of Thane businessman Mansukh Hiran in relation with the 2021 Antilia explosives scare. A division bench headed by chief justice Shree Chandrashekhar and justice Shyam Chandak held that the special court's order passed in February 2025 was well-reasoned and did not warrant interference at this stage. The case stems from the February 2021 recovery of an explosives-laden Mahindra Scorpio near industrialist Mukesh Ambani's residence 'Antilia' on Carmichael Road in south Mumbai. Twenty gelatin sticks and a threat letter addressed to Ambani and his wife, Nita Ambani, were found inside the vehicle. Following the incident, an FIR was registered at the Gamdevi Police Station on February 25 against the unidentified accused. Meanwhile, on February 18, Thane-based businessman Mansukh Hiran filed a complaint about the theft of his Mahindra Scorpio-the same vehicle later found near Antilia. A few days later, Hiran's body was found in near a creek area in Thane. The investigation was then taken over by the National Investigation Agency (NIA), which alleged that Vaze had tried to implicate Hiran as a co-conspirator in the case and had pressured him to take responsibility for the act. When Hiran allegedly refused, Vaze allegedly conspired with Sharma to eliminate him, the police said, adding that Sharma was subsequently arrested on June 17. The special court first rejected Sharma's bail plea in January 2022, prompting him to move the Bombay High Court in January 2023, which denied him bail. Moreover, it noted that his alleged role was limited to conspiring with Vaze to eliminate Hiran and that UAPA provisions may not be applicable in his case. The Supreme Court upheld this observation in August 2023. Subsequently, Sharma moved a discharge application before the special NIA court, which was rejected on February 15, 2025. The court held that the case indicated a broader conspiracy and that it was not necessary for the prosecution to prove each fact independently at the preliminary stage. It also said the credibility of witness statements and documentary evidence would be examined during the trial. Challenging this order before the high court in March 2025, Sharma argued that the case against him relied solely on circumstantial evidence and that the special court had failed to consider the material on record properly. Opposing the plea, additional solicitor general Anil Singh and advocate Adarsh Vyas, appearing for the NIA, told the court that copies of the chargesheet had already been supplied to the accused and acknowledged by them. They argued that the accused had not raised any objections earlier and that reconsidering the discharge plea at this stage was not legally permissible. The high court ultimately dismissed Sharma's appeal, clearing the way for the trial to proceed....