SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 345

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Neela Gokhale, J
Ajit Pathrikar – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
BAIL APPLICATION NO.3679 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Abhishek Yende, Surbhi Agrawal, Shubham Kahite, Sagar P.
For the Respondents: Mahesh Mule, Parth Gawde, Megha S. Bajoria, Pradip Gharat, Trivankumar Karnani, Hritika Jannawar, Sumit Jadhav

Insufficient prima facie evidence to link the applicant to organized crime syndicate warrants bail under MCOCA's stringent conditions.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 103(1), 109, 125; Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 3, 5, 25, 27; Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 - Sections 37, 135; Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 - Sections 3(1)(i)(ii), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4), 21(4) - Bail application - Applicant sought bail in murder case of former minister, with serious allegations of organized crime - Several persons involved; charges under multiple statutes including MCOCA added - Bail application rejected by lower court for lack of evidence linking applicant to organized crime; however, insufficient prima facie evidence against applicant was found to deny bail. (Paras 1-20)

Facts of the case:
The FIR detailing murder of a former minister identified the applicant's indirect connections through phone calls but lacked direct evidence against him; significant involvement of organized crime syndicate with many accused. (Paras 2-6)

Findings of Court:
The court found inadequate evidence linking the applicant to the organized crime syndicate's activities uniquely defining his culpability in the murder, leading to the conclusion that there were no reasonable grounds to deny bail. (Paras 10-19)

Issues: The core issue was whether sufficient evidence existed to consider the applicant an active member of the organized crime syndicate accused of murder. (Paras 9, 14-15)

Ratio Decidendi: The court noted that to deny bail under MCOCA, there must be a clear demonstration of direct involvement in the crime, which was not established by the prosecution in this case, hence ruling for bail. (Paras 14-20)

Result: Bail granted to the applicant with specific conditions. (Para 20)

Table of Content
1. overview of the case and factual context. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments for and against bail application. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. court's analysis and observations on evidence. (Para 8 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 18)
4. legal tests for granting bail under mcoca. (Para 9 , 15 , 16 , 17)
5. court's final decision and bail conditions. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)

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 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 37 and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 . Thereafter, the provisions of (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.

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 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.

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 mater

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top