Bombay High Court: In a bail application arising from the high-profile murder of former Maharashtra Minister Baba Siddiqui, allegedly executed by members of an Organised Crime Syndicate (‘Bishnoi Syndicate’), while dealing with the issue whether the stringent twin conditions under Section 21(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (‘MCOCA’) barred the grant of bail, a Single Judge Bench of Neela Gokhale, J., held that the embargo under Section 21(4) of MCOCA was inapplicable as the material on record did not prima facie demonstrate the applicant’s connection with the Bishnoi Syndicate. Consequently, the Court granted bail.
Background
A police constable (‘Complainant’) of the Special Protection Unit was assigned to provide personal security to Ziauddin Abdul Rahim Siddiqui alias Baba Siddiqui, a former Minister of State of Maharashtra, along with other police officials deputed as bodyguards. On 12-10-2024, while Baba Siddiqui was leaving his son’s office, three unknown persons opened fire at about 9:30 p.m., resulting in his death and causing injuries to others present. Accordingly, on the Complainant’s statement, an FIR was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 109, 125 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’) and Sections 3, 5, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 37 and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. Thereafter, the provisions of Sections 3(1)(i)(ii), 3(2), 3(3) and 3(4) of the MCOCA were added.
Two assailants were apprehended while fleeing, and firearms, live cartridges and other materials were recovered upon their body search, leading to their arrest. Investigation suggested that the attack was linked to an Organised Crime Syndicate (‘Bishnoi Syndicate’) allegedly headed by a wanted accused. Hench, approval under Section 23(1) dated 29-11-2024 and sanction under Section 23(2) dated 2-1-2025 were granted by the Joint Commissioner of Police and the Special Commissioner of Police, respectively, to apply MCOCA provisions. Subsequent investigation disclosed involvement of 27 persons, including the present applicant as Accused 24.
The applicant’s bail plea before the Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge under the MCOCA was rejected on 19-7-2025, leading to the filing of the present bail application. He contended that he was falsely implicated as there was no incriminating material linking him to the offence or to the Bishnoi Syndicate. He submitted that he was arrested based on 1-2 calls made to Accused 15 and some international calls, yet no material established that the calls were related to the offence. Further, as to allegations of international calls, he stated that he had called his relatives in Canada and urged that the prosecution had not even identified any recipient. The applicant argued that the FIR did not name him, and no confessional statement of any co-accused included his name. The applicant further pointed out that he had no criminal antecedents.
On the other hand, the State argued that analysis of phone data indicated the applicant used a hotspot connection of a farm hand in his village to make two calls to Accused 15 on 7-10-2024. It was submitted that data extraction of Accused 15’s phones confirmed receipt of these calls. The State also referred to international calls, applicant’s photographs with firearms, the fact that his native place is the same as that of the alleged gang leader of Bishnoi Syndicate, and cash deposits in an ATM linked to an account connected to a co-accused. The State contended that the Bishnoi Syndicate was involved in other firing incidents, that the gang leader had recently been extradited, and that granting bail would hamper investigation. Baba Siddiqui’s wife (‘intervenor’) supported the State and argued that a 22-year-old had no occasion to make international calls, suggesting that itself indicated guilt.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that the prosecution’s case against the applicant hinged entirely on two calls alleged to have been made on 7-10-2024 using another person’s internet hotspot. The Court observed that merely placing a call to another accused did not connect the applicant to the Crime Syndicate unless it was demonstrated that he knew the other accused was assisting the syndicate, which could only be established during trial. Regarding allegations of international calls, the Court noted that the prosecution made no effort to identify the recipients and observed that a bare allegation that calls were made to supporters of the Crime Syndicate in Canada, unsupported by any material, did not advance the prosecution case.
The Court then viewed the confessional statements of two co-accused, which described the modus operandi, recruitments, procurement of weapons, and the planning and execution of the attack on Baba Siddiqui. The Court highlighted that the applicant’s name was completely absent, despite detailed narration of roles of others.
As to the applicant’s photograph holding a gun, the Court noted that there was a license in the name of the applicant’s father, and the prosecution’s own case was that the weapons used in the crime were procured from Rajasthan. The Court opined that a photograph alone did not support the allegation that the applicant had participated in a conspiracy to murder Baba Siddiqui.
On the alleged ATM deposit, the Court observed that there was no averment in the affidavit nor any supporting material linking the applicant to the deposit. The Court rejected the prosecution’s suggestion that the applicant’s presence in Punjab, where the ATM deposit occurred, established financial assistance to the syndicate. The Court, after examining the material, observed that it was unable to form a view that the accusations under MCOCA were prima facie true against the applicant.
The Court referred to Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 1 SCC 242, wherein it was observed that for the grant of bail
“Apart from the grant of opportunity to the Public Prosecutor, the other twin conditions are: the satisfaction of the court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The conditions are cumulative and not alternative.”
The Court also relied on Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 5 SCC 294, where it was held that
“while dealing with a special statute like MCOCA having regard to the provisions contained in sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the Act, the Court may have to probe into the matter deeper so as to enable it to arrive at a finding that the materials collected against the accused during the investigation may not justify a judgment of conviction”.
For the second part of embargo under Section 21(4) of MCOCA regarding the possibility of the applicant committing an offence while on bail, the Court noted the applicant’s absence of antecedents, his young age, and the limited nature of the alleged contact with a co-accused, and found it unlikely that he would commit any offence.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that the embargo under Section 21(4) of the MCOCA does not apply, making the case fit for grant of bail, subject to stringent conditions.
[Akashdeep Karaj Singh v. State of Maharashtra, Bail Application No. 3679 of 2025, decided on 9-2-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Applicant: Abhishek Yende a/w Surbhi Agrawal, Shubham Kahite & Sagar P, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mahesh Mule, SPP a/w Parth Gawde & Megha S. Bajoria, APP.
For the Intervenor: Pradip Gharat a/w Trivankumar Karnani, Hritika Jannawar & Sumit Jadhav, Advocates.