Insufficient Evidence Under Section 21(4) MCOCA Justifies Bail Grant: Bombay High Court

Introduction

In a notable development in the high-profile murder case of former Maharashtra Minister Baba Siddique, the Bombay High Court has granted bail to Akashdeep Karaj Singh, a 22-year-old accused from Punjab, marking the first such relief in the investigation. Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale, in her order dated February 9, 2026 , ruled that there are no reasonable grounds at this stage to believe Singh is guilty under the stringent provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), 1999 , particularly Section 21(4). The decision underscores the court's cautious approach to bail in organised crime cases, balancing the seriousness of the allegations with the need for concrete evidence. Singh, arrested as the 24th accused in connection with the October 12, 2024 , shooting outside his son's office in Mumbai's Bandra area, argued he was falsely implicated with no specific role in the crime. The bench imposed strict conditions, including reporting to police and surrendering his passport, while clarifying that the order does not influence other co-accused. This ruling comes amid ongoing investigations linking the murder to the Bishnoi gang , with over 27 individuals in custody.

Case Background

The case stems from the brazen assassination of Ziauddin Abdul Rahim Siddiqui, popularly known as Baba Siddique, a three-time Congress MLA and former Minister in the Maharashtra government. On the evening of October 12, 2024 , Siddique, aged 66, was gunned down by three assailants near his son Zeeshan Siddique's office in Khernagar, Bandra East, Mumbai. The attack occurred around 9:30 PM as Siddique proceeded to his car after attending an event. Eyewitnesses, including police personnel from the Special Protection Unit assigned to his security, reported that the shooters fired multiple rounds, leading to Siddique's death and injuries to bystanders. An FIR was registered the next day at Nirmalnagar Police Station under Sections 103(1) (murder), 109 (abetment), 125 (causing hurt), and 3(5) (common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 , along with provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 , and Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 .

Investigations quickly revealed ties to an organised crime syndicate allegedly led by Anmol Bishnoi and his brother Lawrence Bishnoi, known for a string of crimes including extortion, murder, and attacks on high-profile figures like actor Salman Khan and director Rohit Shetty. Two assailants, Gurmail Baljit Singh and Dharmaraj Radhe Kashyap, were apprehended fleeing the scene with firearms and ammunition. Further probes, involving the Mumbai Crime Branch and Punjab Anti-Gangster Task Force , uncovered a conspiracy involving recruitment of shooters, procurement of weapons from Rajasthan, and coordination via social media and phone calls. MCOCA charges were invoked on November 29, 2024 , following approval under Section 23(1), with formal sanction on January 2, 2025 . A charge-sheet was filed before the Special MCOCA Court in Mumbai.

Akashdeep Karaj Singh, a resident of Pakkachisti village in Fazilka district, Punjab, was arrested on November 12, 2024 , in a joint operation. Police alleged he served as a link between shooters and Bishnoi gang members, based on call records and his proximity to the gang's origins in Punjab. However, Singh's initial bail plea before the Additional Sessions Judge and Special MCOCA Judge was rejected on July 19, 2025 , prompting his appeal to the Bombay High Court under Bail Application No. 3679 of 2025. The central legal questions revolved around whether the prosecution's evidence—primarily two phone calls and unsubstantiated international call allegations—met the threshold for denying bail under MCOCA's rigorous standards, and if prolonged detention without trial violated fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution .

The timeline highlights the case's complexity: from the murder in October 2024, arrests spanning months, to the bail hearing reserved on February 3, 2026 , and pronounced on February 9, 2026 . With Anmol Bishnoi recently extradited and in custody, investigations continue, but the court emphasized that bail decisions must not prejudice the trial.

Arguments Presented

The applicant's counsel, Abhishek Yende , along with associates, mounted a vigorous defense asserting Singh's wrongful implication. They argued that no incriminating material directly tied him to the crime or the Bishnoi syndicate. Specifically, Singh was not named in the FIR or any confessional statements from co-accused like Sujit Singh (Accused No. 15) and Nitin Sapre (Accused No. 5), who detailed the conspiracy, recruitment, and execution without mentioning him. The sole basis for arrest—two calls to Sujit Singh on October 7, 2024 , using a local hotspot—lacked context linking them to the murder plot. Yende dismissed international call allegations as baseless, claiming they were to relatives in Canada, not syndicate members. A photo of Singh with a firearm was attributed to his father's licensed gun (valid until 2018), unrelated to the Rajasthan-sourced weapons used in the crime. With no criminal antecedents and the trial unlikely to commence soon, counsel invoked Article 21, arguing indefinite incarceration without evidence violated personal liberty . They urged the court to find no prima facie case under Section 21(4) of MCOCA.

Opposing the plea, Special Public Prosecutor Mahesh Mule , supported by Additional Public Prosecutor Parth Gawde , emphasized the syndicate's gravity. Mule highlighted forensic analysis of call data showing Singh used Balvir Singh's hotspot for the calls to Sujit, corroborated by Balvir's statement. International calls during the relevant period suggested coordination with overseas operatives. Singh's Punjab roots matched Anmol Bishnoi's, and data from his seized Oppo and Redmi phones included firearm photos. Mule alleged Singh deposited money in a Punjab ATM that reached a co-accused's Mumbai account, aiding the syndicate financially. He linked the Bishnoi gang to prior attacks, including screenshots from co-accused Shubham Lonkar claiming responsibility for the Shetty firing. Releasing Singh, Mule argued, would tamper with witnesses and impede interrogation of Anmol Bishnoi. The intervenor, Shehzeen Ziauddin Siddiqui (Baba's wife), represented by Senior Counsel Pradip Gharat , reinforced this, questioning a 22-year-old's need for international calls and urging rejection to honor the victim's family.

Both sides clashed on evidentiary thresholds: the defense on lack of specificity and direct proof, the prosecution on circumstantial links forming a chain of complicity in organised crime.

Legal Analysis

Justice Gokhale's reasoning meticulously dissected the prosecution's case against MCOCA's bail embargo under Section 21(4), which requires the court to find reasonable grounds believing the accused not guilty and unlikely to reoffend. She affirmed MCOCA's apt invocation for the Bishnoi syndicate's "serious offences" like murder and extortion but scrutinized evidence qua Singh. The court found the two calls insufficient without proof of content or knowledge of Sujit Singh's role, noting mere contact does not imply syndicate membership. International calls were dismissed for lacking recipient details, failing to establish complicity. Confessional statements from key accused omitted Singh entirely, despite detailing the modus operandi —social media inspiration from Lawrence Bishnoi, recruitment by Nitin Sapre, and planning by Anmol Bishnoi and Shubham Lonkar. The gun photo and money deposit claims were unsubstantiated, the former unrelated to crime weapons and the latter absent from affidavits.

Drawing on precedents, the court applied principles from Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 1 SCC 242, emphasizing factors like offence seriousness, evidence character, accused's circumstances, and public interest. It clarified Section 21(4)'s " reasonable grounds " demand substantial probable causes, not just prima facie links, with satisfaction based on facts justifying non-guilt belief. From State v. Capt. Jagjit Singh (1962) 3 SCR 622 and Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) (1978) 1 SCC 118, the bench weighed no tampering risk given weak evidence. In Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal v. State of Tamil Nadu (2005) 2 SCC 13, the Supreme Court stressed tentative bail findings without prejudicing trials.

Further, Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 5 SCC 294 guided the analysis: courts must balance acquittal-conviction dynamics without mandating positive non-guilt findings pre-trial. Probe deeper under MCOCA but base on broad probabilities, not meticulous evidence-weighing. The ruling distinguished organised crime involvement (requiring continuous unlawful acts ) from isolated contacts, holding that without demonstrated knowledge or role, detention was unjustified. At 22 with no antecedents, reoffending risk was low. This nuanced application highlights MCOCA's stringency must yield to constitutional safeguards, preventing misuse against peripherally linked individuals.

The decision integrates investigative insights from sources like ETV Bharat, noting Singh's arrest as the 24th accused and police claims of his linker role, but prioritizes judgment's evidentiary scrutiny over unproven allegations.

Key Observations

The judgment features several pivotal excerpts underscoring the court's rationale:

• On MCOCA's applicability: “Undoubtedly, the acts committed by the Organised Crime Syndicate, alleged to be headed by the Bishnoi brothers, are serious offences. The provisions of MCOCA are rightly invoked.” This acknowledges the law's validity while pivoting to individual evidence.

• Dismissing call evidence: “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.”

• On confessional omissions: “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.”

• Evidentiary threshold from precedent: Quoting Chenna Boyanna : “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.”

• Prima facie finding: “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.”

These quotes illuminate the court's evidence-based restraint in MCOCA bail matters.

Court's Decision

The Bombay High Court allowed the bail application, directing Singh's release on a personal recognizance bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with sureties, subject to nine stringent conditions. These include mandatory attendance at trial dates, bi-weekly reporting to the DCB/CID office every alternate Monday between 11:00 AM and 2:00 PM, passport deposit, prohibition on leaving Maharashtra or the country without trial court permission, no witness tampering, residence and contact updates, trial cooperation, and bail cancellation for violations. The order explicitly states these are prima facie observations limited to Singh, with no bearing on other accused's pleas, ensuring the trial judge decides uninfluenced.

Practically, this releases Singh after over a year in custody, alleviating Article 21 concerns amid delayed trials in complex MCOCA cases. It signals courts' willingness to grant bail where evidence is circumstantial and weak, potentially easing pressure on undertrial populations in organised crime prosecutions. For future cases, it reinforces that MCOCA's twin conditions under Section 21(4) demand more than associative links—requiring probable cause of guilt and reoffending risk—discouraging overreach in syndicate allegations. Legal practitioners may cite it to challenge vague implicatons, while prosecutors must bolster circumstantial chains with specifics. In the broader Baba Siddique probe, it underscores investigative challenges against elusive gangs like the Bishnois, possibly prompting refined evidence-gathering. Overall, the ruling promotes liberty's presumption absent robust proof, impacting how MCOCA is wielded against peripheral figures in high-stakes crimes.