Bombay HC Grants Bail to Accused in Baba Siddiqui Murder Case, Says Two Phone Calls Insufficient to Attract MCOCA Bar

The Bombay High Court has granted bail to a 22-year-old accused in the murder case of former Maharashtra minister Ziauddin Abdul Rahim Siddiqui @ Baba Siddiqui, holding that mere telephonic contact with a co-accused, without substantive material establishing nexus with an organised crime syndicate, is insufficient to invoke the stringent bar on bail under Section 21(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA).

Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale allowed the bail application filed by Akashdeep Karaj Singh (Accused No. 24), observing that the prosecution material, even if accepted at face value, did not disclose reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations under MCOCA were prima facie true.

The Court held that the twin conditions under Section 21(4) were not satisfied and directed his release on bail subject to stringent conditions

The case arises from the firing incident dated 12.10.2024, outside premises in Khernagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai, in which Baba Siddiqui was shot at around 9:30 pm and later succumbed to his injuries.

Two assailants were apprehended at the scene with firearms and cartridges. During investigation, the police invoked provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Arms Act, Maharashtra Police Act and subsequently added MCOCA, alleging that the offence was committed by an organised crime syndicate headed by Anmol Bishnoi.

The applicant was arraigned as Accused No. 24. According to the prosecution, he was an active member of the syndicate and had made two calls on 07.10.2024 to co-accused Sujit Singh (A-15) using the internet hotspot of one Balvir Singh in Punjab. It was also alleged that he made international calls to coordinate with syndicate members operating overseas, had photographs with firearms on his phone, and had deposited money in an ATM in Punjab that was allegedly linked to the syndicate.

Opposing bail, the Special Public Prosecutor relied on mobile extraction reports, the statement of Balvir Singh, and broader allegations regarding the activities of the Bishnoi syndicate, including other high-profile firing incidents.

The intervenor, wife of the deceased, also opposed bail.

The Court, however, undertook a detailed examination of the material. It noted that the prosecution case against the applicant “hinges on two calls” allegedly made to A-15.

The mobile extraction showed that calls were exchanged, but there was no material to demonstrate that the applicant had knowledge of A-15’s involvement in organised crime or that the calls were connected to the offence.

The Court further observed that the prosecution had not identified the recipients of the alleged international calls. A “bare allegation” of international communication without supporting material could not, at this stage, establish complicity in organised crime.

Significantly, the Court examined the confessional statements of co-accused A-15 and A-5 in detail. Both had narrated the planning and execution of the attack and named several persons. However, the applicant’s name did not find mention in either confession. The Court noted that while the co-accused had described their roles and those of other syndicate members in detail, “the Applicant’s name is eloquently absent.”

As regards the photographs of the applicant holding a firearm, the Court held that this did not advance the prosecution case, particularly since the weapons used in the offence were allegedly brought from Rajasthan and no material connected the photographed weapon to the crime.

On the allegation of money deposited in Punjab, the Court found no material in the affidavit to substantiate that it was the applicant who deposited funds for the syndicate.

The mere fact that he hailed from Punjab and money was deposited in Punjab did not establish financial assistance to the syndicate.

After analysing the legal framework under Section 21(4) MCOCA and relying on Supreme Court precedents including Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav v. State of Maharashtra and Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra, the Court reiterated that “reasonable grounds” under MCOCA require something more than prima facie suspicion. The Court must be satisfied that substantial probable causes exist for believing the accused is guilty.

Applying this standard, the Court held that, at this stage, it could not form an opinion that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations under MCOCA were prima facie true against the applicant.

On the second limb of Section 21(4), concerning the likelihood of committing an offence while on bail, the Court noted that the applicant had no criminal antecedents, was only 22 years old, and his alleged involvement was limited to telephonic contact.

It therefore found it unlikely that he would commit an offence under MCOCA while on bail.

The Court clarified that its findings were prima facie and limited to the bail stage. The applicant was directed to be released on execution of a PR bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with local sureties, to report periodically to DCB/CID, not leave Maharashtra without permission, deposit passport, and refrain from contacting witnesses.

Any violation would entail cancellation of bail.

The application was accordingly allowed.

Case Title: Akashdeep Karaj Singh v. State of Maharashtra

Bench: Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale

Date of Judgment: 09.02.2026