As per case facts, Applicant Akashdeep Karaj Singh sought bail in a murder case of former Minister Baba Siddiqui, where MCOCA and other acts were applied. The prosecution alleged his ...
BA_3679_2025.doc
Ajit Pathrikar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.3679 OF 2025
Akashdeep Karaj Singh …Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra …Respondent
Mr. Abhishek Yende a/w Ms. Surbhi Agrawal, Mr. Shubham
Kahite & Mr. Sagar P. for Applicant.
Mr. Mahesh Mule, SPP a/w Mr. Parth Gawde & Ms. Megha S.
Bajoria, APP for the State-Respondent.
Mr. Pradip Gharat a/w Mr. Trivankumar Karnani, Ms. Hritika
Jannawar & Mr. Sumit Jadhav for Intervenor.
API- Ramdas Kadam a/w ACP- Sadanand Rane, DCB CID, is
present.
CORAM DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.
RESERVED ON: 03
rd
FEBRUARY 2026
PRONOUNCED ON:09
th
FEBRUARY 2026
JUDGMENT:-
1. By this Application, the Applicant seeks his
enlargement on bail in connection with C.R. No. 589 of 2024
dated 13th October 2024 registered with the Nirmalnagar
Police Station, Brihanmumbai City, for the offences punishable
under Sections 103(1), 109, 125 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS') and Section 3, 5, 25
Page 1 of 23
9
th
February 2026
BA_3679_2025.doc
and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 37 and 135 of the
Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. Thereafter, the provisions of
Section 3(1)(i)(ii), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4) of the Maharashtra
Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (for short ‘MCOCA’)
were added.
2. The offence relates to the murder of one Ziauddin
Abdul Rahim Siddiqui @ Baba Siddiqui, former Minister in
the State of Maharashtra.
3. The facts as discerned from the FIR are as follows:
i) The First Informant is a police constable attached to the
Special Protection Unit of the Mumbai Police, entrusted with
the personal security protection of one Ziauddin Abdul Rahim
Siddiqui @ Baba Siddiqui, a former Minister, State of
Maharashtra. There were other police officials deputed as
bodyguards to provide security to Baba Siddiqui.
Page 2 of 23
9
th
February 2026
BA_3679_2025.doc
ii) On 12th October 2024, while the First Informant was on
security duty, Baba Siddiqui visited his son's office at premise
No.14, Building No.35, Khernagar, Nirmalnagar, Bandra (E),
Mumbai. At about 09:30 pm., three unknown persons opened
fire on him, while he was proceeding towards his car. Baba
Siddiqui succumbed to his injuries and several persons present
at the spot also sustained injuries. Accordingly, on the
Complainant's detailed statement, FIR came to be registered.
iii) The two assailants, namely Accused No.1 and 2 -
Gurmail Baljit Singh and Dharmaraj Radhe Kashyap
respectively, were apprehended while they were fleeing from
the spot. Upon their body search, firearms, live cartridges and
other material was seized from them. Consequently, they were
arrested on 13th October 2024.
iv) During the investigation, perusal of the crime record
indicated that one Anmol Bishnoi, the gang leader, committed
serious offences such as robbery, extortion, dacoity, murder,
attempt to murder, using lethal firearms, recruiting youth and
Page 3 of 23
9
th
February 2026
BA_3679_2025.doc
raising funds to carry out unlawful activities in various states.
According to the Investigating Agency, an Organised Crime
Syndicate, headed by wanted accused and gang leader, Anmol
Bishnoi, was found to be indulging continuously in unlawful
activities. Competent Courts of law had previously taken
cognizance of two charge-sheets under the provisions of
MCOCA, against said Anmol Bishnoi along with his brother
Lawrence Bishnoi and other associates. Hence, approval was
granted by the Joint Commissioner of Police under Section
23(1) of the MCOCA dated 29th November 2024 to add
charges of MCOCA in the present case. Thereafter, the Special
Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, also granted sanction under
Section 23(2) of the Act dated 2nd January 2025. The charge-
sheet was filed before the Special MCOCA Court, Mumbai.
v) Upon further inquiries and investigation in the case,
involvement of 27 persons was revealed. One of them is the
present Applicant, arraigned as Accused No.24. All the
accused are in custody.
Page 4 of 23
9
th
February 2026
BA_3679_2025.doc
4. The Applicant made an application seeking bail
before the Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge under
the MCOCA, however, by order dated 19th July 2025, the said
application was rejected. Hence, the Applicant has filed the
present Bail Application for the relief as prayed.
5. Mr. Abhishek Yende, learned counsel for the
Applicant, submitted as follows:
i) The Applicant is falsely implicated in the crime.
ii) There is no incriminating material against the Applicant.
He was not a member of the Organised Crime Syndicate run
by the wanted Accused No.3, Anmol Bishnoi.
iii) The Applicant was arrested on the basis of 1-2 calls
alleged to have been made by him to Accused No.15, one Sujit
Singh. There is no material on record to indicate the Applicant
having any connection with said Sujit Singh pertaining to the
said offence. There is also an allegation that the Applicant
Page 5 of 23
9
th
February 2026
BA_3679_2025.doc
made certain international calls. There is no material on
record to indicate as to the recipients of the alleged
international calls. It is the say of the Applicant that he had
called his relatives in Canada and had nothing to do with any
accused nor their associates, in the present case.
iv) The Applicant is not named by any of the accused in any
confessional statement recorded by them. The FIR also does
not name the Applicant. Mr. Yende relied on the confessional
statements of Sujit Singh (A-15) and Nitin Sapre (A-5), who
according to the prosecution, were contacted by the
Applicant, to show that neither of them have even mentioned
the name of the Applicant.
v) There are no criminal antecedents against the
Applicant.
Hence, Mr. Yende prays that the Applicant be enlarged on bail.
Page 6 of 23
9
th
February 2026
BA_3679_2025.doc
6. Mr. Mule, learned Spl. P.P., representing the State
(DCB CID), Mumbai, submitted as under:
i) Mr. Mule referred to an Affidavit dated 20th November
2025, affirmed before the Assistant Registrar, High Court,
Appellate Side, by one Kishor Kumar Shinde, Assistant
Commissioner of Police, DCB/CID. Analysis of phone numbers
and handsets used during the relevant period was conducted.
The said investigation indicated that the Applicant used the
internet hotspot of the mobile phone of one Balvir Bacchan
Singh, a farm hand in his village, namely Pakkachisti, P/o
Karni Kheda, Fazilka Police Station, District Fazilka, Punjab.
Using the said hotspot, he called Sujit Singh (A-15) from his
mobile phone. He had two mobile phones, one of Oppo
company and the other of Redmi.
ii) Mr. Mule relied upon the statement of Balvir Singh
recorded on 12th November 2024, wherein he stated that
while he and the Applicant were at home in Pakkachisti, on
7th October, 2024, the Applicant used his internet hot spot
Page 7 of 23
9
th
February 2026
BA_3679_2025.doc
and told him that he wanted to make 1-2 important calls. On
arresting A-15, the police seized A-15’s mobile phones and the
extraction report of his phone established that the Applicant
had made two calls to A-15 on 7th October 2024. Hence, it is
the case of the prosecution that the Applicant is an active
member of the Organised Crime Syndicate run by the Bishnoi
brothers.
iii) The Applicant also made international calls on various
occasions during the material period to co-ordinate with
members of Organised Crime Syndicate operating from
overseas.
iv) Data extraction of the Applicant's phone recovered at
the time of his arrest, revealed his photographs with firearms.
v) The Applicant is the native of Pakkachisti, Fazilka,
Punjab, which is also the native place of gang leader, Anmol
Bishnoi.
Page 8 of 23
9
th
February 2026
BA_3679_2025.doc
vi) The Applicant deposited some money in an ATM in
Punjab, which was received by a friend of the co-accused in
his SBI account in Mumbai.
vii) Mr. Mule argued that the Crime Syndicate was involved
in the firing of bullets at actor-Salman Khan’s house as well as
firing on film director-Rohit Shetty’s house. He tendered an
extract of a screenshot appearing on the Facebook of one co-
accused (wanted) Shubham Lonkar, claiming responsibility for
the firing on the house of Rohit Shetty. He also submitted that
the gang leader, Anmol Bishnoi, was extradited recently and is
in custody of the National Investigation Agency and currently
lodged in Tihar Jail, New Delhi. The Investigating Agency is
also to interrogate him in the present case. Hence, releasing
the Applicant on bail, at this stage, shall impede the
investigation in the present case. Mr. Mule further submitted
that the Applicant is an active participant and member of the
Organised Crime Syndicate run by the Bishnoi brothers and
prayed that the Bail Application be rejected.
Page 9 of 23
9
th
February 2026
BA_3679_2025.doc
7. Mr. Pradip Gharat, learned Senior Counsel
appeared for the Intervenor namely, Shehzeen Ziauddin
Siddiqui, wife of deceased Baba Siddiqui. He supported the
arguments advanced by Mr. Mule and added that the
Applicant, a young boy of 22 years had no cause nor occasion
to make international calls. This by itself, brings home his
guilt. He also prayed for rejection of the Bail Application.
8. I have carefully considered the submissions
advanced by the counsels appearing for the respective parties
and perused the record with their assistance.
9. Section 21(4) of the MCOCA imposes stringent
conditions for grant of bail and stipulates as under:
“
21. Modified application of certain provisions of the
Code.—
(1) …
(2) …
(3) …
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code,
no person accused of an offence punishable under this
Page 10 of 23
9
th
February 2026
BA_3679_2025.doc
Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his
own bond, unless—
(a) the Public Prosecutor has been given an
opportunity to oppose the application of such release;
and
(b) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the
application, the Court is satisfied that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty
of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any
offence while on bail.”
10. Thus, the Court has to be satisfied that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that the Applicant is not
guilty of such offence, as alleged, for the grant of bail. I have
perused the affidavit filed by the Respondent-State. The entire
case of the prosecution
qua the present Applicant, hinges on
the two calls made by him to A-15, using the internet hot spot
of Balvir Singh, on 7
th
October, 2024. The prosecution has
relied upon the mobile extraction panchanama of A-15's
mobile phone showing two calls received by him from the
Applicant's phone. Further, witness Balvir Singh stated that
the Applicant made 1-2 calls from his mobile by using Balvir
Page 11 of 23
9
th
February 2026
BA_3679_2025.doc
Singh's internet hot spot. Thus, although the extraction
panchnama of A-15’s phone reveals two being calls made,
however, there is no material on record at this stage, to
establish the Applicant's connection with A-15 concerning the
present offence. Merely putting through a call to the mobile
phone of A-15
prima facie does not connect the Applicant
with the organised crime syndicate, unless it is demonstrated
that the Applicant had knowledge of A-15 being engaged in
assisting in any manner, an organised crime syndicate. This
fact can be established only during the trial. Moreover,
although an allegation is made regarding complicity of the
Applicant in participation in the Organised Crime Syndicate of
the Bishnoi brothers, based on some international calls
alleged to have been made by the Applicant, no effort is made
by the prosecution to identify the receivers of the said calls. A
bare allegation unsupported by any material that the
Applicant made international calls to supporters of the
Organised Crime Syndicate in Canada, does not indicate his
complicity in the offence.
Page 12 of 23
9
th
February 2026
BA_3679_2025.doc
11. I have also perused in detail the confessional
statements of A-15 and A-5 carefully. Sujit Singh (A-15) has
explained how he was inspired by Lawrence Bishnoi through
social media. He has also given the telephone numbers vide
which he communicated with Shubham Lonkar. Further, he
narrated the
modus operandi of the planning and execution of
the attack on Baba Siddiqui. He has named Nitin Sapre, Ram
Kanojia, Anmol Bishnoi, Shubham Lonkar in his confessional
statement. Similarly, Nitin Sapre (A-5) has also narrated how
he was roped in the gang; the manner in which he recruited
young boys to work for their crime syndicate and also how
weapons were procured. In the detailed confession statement
of A-5 and A-15, neither of them have named the Applicant as
a person who was involved in any of the offences committed
by the crime syndicate in general and the present offence, in
particular. It is pertinent to note that A-15 and A-5 have
described in some detail their own role as well as the role of
other members/accused connected with the present offence.
The Applicant's name is eloquently absent.
Page 13 of 23
9
th
February 2026
BA_3679_2025.doc
12. The alleged photograph of the Applicant carrying
a gun does not take the case of the prosecution further
regarding the said particular weapon being used to commit an
offence by any member of the organised syndicate. There is a
license issued in the name of the Applicant's father valid
through 2016 till 2018. The prosecution’s own case is that the
weapons used in the firing on Baba Siddiqui were brought
from Rajasthan. In any case, the existence of a photograph of
the Applicant holding a gun, in his phone, does not
demonstrate that he has participated in the criminal
conspiracy of murdering the deceased.
13. Although, Mr. Mule argued that A-15's confession
contains a statement that he received some money in the
account of some of his friends, in the SBI account, and that it
was the present Applicant who deposited the money in an
ATM in Punjab, there is no averment in this regard in the
affidavit, neither is there any material to even indicate that it
was the present Applicant who deposited money in an ATM in
Page 14 of 23
9
th
February 2026
BA_3679_2025.doc
Punjab. The only explanation offered by Mr. Mule in this
regard, is that since the Applicant also belongs to Punjab and
the money has been deposited in an ATM in Punjab, does
neither connect the Applicant with the syndicate nor does it
per se establish the Applicant rendering financial assistance to
the organised crime syndicate. Thus, I am unable to agree
with Mr. Mule's argument.
14. Undoubtedly, the acts committed by the Organised
Crime Syndicate, alleged to be headed by Bishnoi brothers,
are serious offences. The provisions of the MCOCA are thus
invoked. However, on examination of the material relied upon
by the prosecution in its affidavit dated 20th November 2025,
qua the present Applicant and taking the material against the
Applicant as it is, without considering the defence of the
Applicant, I am unable to form an opinion that there are
reasonable grounds, at this stage, for believing that the
accusations against the Applicant of commission of the offence
under the MCOCA are
prima facie true.
Page 15 of 23
9
th
February 2026
BA_3679_2025.doc
15. In Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Anr.
1
, the Apex Court weighed in on the
considerations in granting bail in non-bailable offences.
Relying upon its earlier decisions in State Vs. Capt. Jagjit
Singh
2
and Gurcharan Singh Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
3
and also in Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal Vs. State of Tamil
Nadu
4
, the Supreme Court observed as under:
“… the nature and seriousness of the offence; the
character of the evidence; circumstances which are
peculiar to the accused; a reasonable possibility of the
presence of the accused not being secured at the trial;
reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered
with; the larger interest of the public or the State and
other similar factors which may be relevant in the
facts and circumstances of the case.”
16. In
Chenna Boyanna (supra), the Supreme Court
observed as under:
1 (2007) 1 SCC 242
2 (1962) 3 SCR 622
3 (1978) 1 SCC 118
4 (2005) 2 SCC 13
Page 16 of 23
9
th
February 2026
BA_3679_2025.doc
“13. It is plain from a bare reading of the non-obstante
clause in the sub-section that the power to grant bail
by the High Court or Court of Sessions is not only
subject to the limitations imposed by Section 439 of
the Code but is also subject to the limitations placed
by Section 21(4) of MCOCA. 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
satisfaction contemplated regarding the accused being
not guilty has to be based on reasonable grounds. The
expression "reasonable grounds" means something
more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates
substantial probable causes for believing that the
accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The
reasonable belief contemplated in the provisions
requires existence of such facts and circumstances as
are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that
the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. Thus,
recording of findings under the said provision is a sine
qua non for granting bail under MCOCA.”
Page 17 of 23
9
th
February 2026
BA_3679_2025.doc
17.In Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Anr.
5
, considering the provisions of Section
21(4) of the Act, the three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court
observed as under:
"43. Section 21(4) of MCOCA does not make any
distinction between an offence which entails
punishment of life imprisonment and an imprisonment
for a year or two. It does not provide that even in case
a person remains behind the bars for a period
exceeding three years, although his involvement may
be in terms of Section 24 of the Act, the court is
prohibited to enlarge him on bail. Each case,
therefore, must be considered on its own facts. The
question as to whether he is involved in the
commission of organised crime or abetment thereof
must be judged objectively. ...
44. The wording of Section 21(4), in our opinion, does
not lead to the conclusion that the court must arrive at
a positive finding that the applicant for bail has not
committed an offence under the Act. If such a
construction is placed, the court intending to grant
bail must arrive at a finding that the applicant has not
committed such an offence. In such an event, it will be
5 (2005) 5 SCC 294
Page 18 of 23
9
th
February 2026
BA_3679_2025.doc
impossible for the prosecution to obtain a judgment of
conviction of the applicant. Such cannot be the
intention of the legislature. Section 21(4) of MCOCA,
therefore, must be construed reasonably. It must be so
construed that the court is able to maintain a delicate
balance between a judgment of acquittal and
conviction and an order granting bail much before
commencement of trial. Similarly, the court will be
required to record a finding as to the possibility of his
committing a crime after grant of bail. However, such
an offence in future must be an offence under the Act
and not any other offence. Since it is difficult to
predict the future conduct of an accused, the court
must necessarily consider this aspect of the matter
having regard to the antecedents of the accused, his
propensities and the nature and manner in which he is
alleged to have committed the offence."
* * *
46. The duty of the court at this stage is not to weigh
the evidence meticulously but to arrive at a finding on
the basis of broad probabilities. However, 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
Page 19 of 23
9
th
February 2026
BA_3679_2025.doc
accused during the investigation may not justify a
judgment of conviction. The findings recorded by the
court while granting or refusing bail undoubtedly
would be tentative in nature, which may not have any
bearing on the merit of the case and the trial court
would, thus, be free to decide the case on the basis of
evidence adduced at the trial, without in any manner
being prejudiced thereby."
18.Insofar, as the second part of the embargo in Section
21(4) of the Act, regarding possibility of the Applicant
committing such an offence after grant of bail is concerned,
considering that the Applicant has no antecedents; he is only
22 years in age; and that his alleged brush with one of the co-
accused, is limited to a phone call made to him, it is unlikely
that he will commit any offence in future.
19. Bearing in mind the above broad legal principles
and the material
qua the present Applicant, as relied upon by
the prosecution at this stage, as discussed herein above, the
embargo on the grant of bail under provisions of Section
21(4) will not apply in this case and this is a fit case for grant
Page 20 of 23
9
th
February 2026
BA_3679_2025.doc
of bail to the Applicant. I hasten to record, however, that the
findings recorded in this judgment are only
prima facie
observations recorded for the limited purposes for examining
the case in the light of Section 21(4) of the Act, for
determining grant of bail to the Applicant. It is obvious that
while granting bail, however, stringent conditions will have to
be imposed.
20. In these circumstances, I am inclined to enlarge
the Applicant on bail. It is accordingly ordered as under:
ORDER
i) The Applicant be enlarged on bail, on
executing PR Bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/ with
one or two local sureties in the like amount;
ii) The Applicant shall attend the Trial Court
concerned on each and every date, unless exempted
by the orders of the Trial Court concerned;
Page 21 of 23
9
th
February 2026
BA_3679_2025.doc
iii) The Applicant shall also attend the office of
the DCB/CID and report to the Police official
concerned on every alternate Monday of a month
between 11:00 am. to 02:00 pm.;
iv) If the Applicant holds a passport, he shall
deposit the same with the Investigation Officer
concerned, if not already deposited;
v) The Applicant shall neither leave the State of
Maharashtra nor the country, without permission of
the Trial Court;
vi) The Applicant shall not tamper or attempt to
influence or contact the witnesses or any person
concerned with the case;
vii) The Applicant shall inform his latest place of
residence and contact number immediately after
being released and / or change of residence or
Page 22 of 23
9
th
February 2026
BA_3679_2025.doc
mobile phone details, if any, from time to time to the
Court seized of the matter and to the Investigating
Officer of the Police Station concerned;
viii) The Applicant to co-operate with the conduct
of the trial;
ix) Any infraction of the aforesaid conditions
shall entail cancellation of bail.
21. Application is allowed in the above terms and is
accordingly disposed of.
22. It is made clear that the observations made herein
are
prima facie and are confined to this Applicant and this
Application only and the learned Trial Judge to decide the
case on its own merits, uninfluenced by the observations
made herein.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J)
Page 23 of 23
9
th
February 2026
Legal Notes
Add a Note....