PC:-

1. The Applicant seeks his release on bail in connection with CR No.86 of 2024 registered with DCB CID (earlier CR No.589 of 2024 registered with Nirmal Nagar Police Station) for offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 109, 125, 3(5), 336(2), 337, 238, 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with

Sections 3, 5, 25, 25(6), 25(7)(i), 25(8), 25(9) and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, Sections 37(1)(a), 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and Sections 3(1)(i)(ii), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999.

2. In short it is the case of the prosecution that on 12th October, 2024, at about 09:30 p.m. when Baba Siddiqui visited his son’s office at Bandra (E), the unknown persons opened fire at him. In the said firing he sustained injuries and succumbed thereto. At the spot of the incident Accused Nos.1 and 2 who said to have opened fire attempted to flee but were unsuccessful. During the course of investigation role of different accused persons was revealed and in all 27 accused came to be arrested. The provisions of MCOCA also made applicable. On conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet is filed.

3. The Applicant seeks bail on the ground of false implication in the crime. He claims that irrespective of the fact that the offence has been registered under the MCOCA the Applicant is entitled for bail. It is claimed that there is no material in the charge-sheet to show that the Applicant was the member of the organized crime syndicate and has committed the present crime. It is further contended that though mobile phone is shown to have been recovered at the time of arrest of the Applicant, there is no incriminating material found therein. It is also claimed that though at the time of seizure of the mobile phone no SIM card had been seized. Later on, the prosecution has sought to rely upon the CDR dated 23rd December, 2024 attributing the mobile number to the present Applicant. It is also claimed that even if it is presumed that the Applicant was in contact with the co-accused Pradip, Sambhaji and Nitin, without any further evidence brought on record by the prosecution, it is not sufficient to establish nexus with the organized crime. It is claimed that the previous acquaintance with these co-accused persons make the call detail records do not become incriminating material against the Applicant. Insofar as the use of the vehicle on 15th August, 2024 is concerned, it is claimed that the Applicant had taken the same vehicle for the purpose of celebrating birthday of his wife and there is no call detail record with regard to the Applicant being seen along with the co-accused as claimed in the confessional statement of the co-accused. On these amongst the other contentions the Applicant seeks bail.

4. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that though it is alleged against the Applicant that he aided and abetted in commission of crime, there is no evidence in order to prima facie indicate so. It is his submission that the confessional statement of Shivakumar, does not get further corroboration from any other material on record. He drew attention of the Court to the CDR placed in the charge-sheet, which according to him does not show presence of the Applicant and co-accused together. In fact, according to him, what is being seen from the said record is that the mobile phone of the Applicant was switched off at the material time. Thus, it is his submission that there is no evidence in order to hold that the Applicant was with the co-accused. He sought to take exception to the statement of Shiva, co-accused on the ground that the certificate appended to the said confessional statement does not bear date and time as required by the rules framed under the MCOCA. It is argued that the statement of driver of the WagonR car shows that he took the car from the Applicant on the next day and hence recovery thereof thereafter the substantial period of time to be shown at the instance of the