1. Petitioners in custody for alleged financial fraud and cyber offences challenge their continued detention, claiming the trial court failed to take cognizance and issue valid remand orders. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 5060
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Sarang V. Kotwal, Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale, JJ
Shaibaz Kaiser Ateeq Shaikh – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1100 OF 2026
Important Points
Detention of an accused is illegal if the court lacks jurisdiction to take cognizance and no valid remand order or warrant is issued by a competent court after taking cognizance of the offence.
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail and Detention
Act Referred
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: S.61(2), S.318(2), S.319(2), S.336(3), S.338, S.340(2), S.351
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: S.3(1), S.4, S.7(a), S.12
Information Technology Act, 2000: S.66C, S.66D
Telecommunications Act, 2023: S.3(1), S.42(1)
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: S.361, S.187, S.193(9), S.227, S.232, S.346
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: S.3(1), S.4, S.7(a), S.12
Information Technology Act, 2000: S.66C, S.66D
Telecommunications Act, 2023: S.3(1), S.42(1)
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: S.361, S.187, S.193(9), S.227, S.232, S.346
Headnote
(A) Jurisdiction of Special Judge - Prevention of Corruption Act - Absence of PC Act charges - A Special Judge appointed under the PC Act lacks jurisdiction to take cognizance or try a case if no offence under the PC Act is charged in the charge-sheet. (Para 33, 35)
(B) Cognizance of Offence - Judicial Notice - Requirement of application of mind - Cognizance is a conscious judicial act of taking notice of an offence to initiate proceedings; mere adjournment of a case or passing orders on bail does not constitute taking cognizance. (Para 40-44)
(C) Remand and Detention - BNSS Section 346 - Necessity of remand warrant - Continued detention of an accused without a specific remand order or warrant issued by a competent court after taking cognizance is illegal. (Para 45-48)
Issues: Whether the continued detention of the petitioners was illegal due to the lack of jurisdiction of the Special Judge and the absence of a formal order of cognizance and remand by the Magistrate.
(B) Cognizance of Offence - Judicial Notice - Requirement of application of mind - Cognizance is a conscious judicial act of taking notice of an offence to initiate proceedings; mere adjournment of a case or passing orders on bail does not constitute taking cognizance. (Para 40-44)
(C) Remand and Detention - BNSS Section 346 - Necessity of remand warrant - Continued detention of an accused without a specific remand order or warrant issued by a competent court after taking cognizance is illegal. (Para 45-48)
Issues: Whether the continued detention of the petitioners was illegal due to the lack of jurisdiction of the Special Judge and the absence of a formal order of cognizance and remand by the Magistrate.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Milan Desai, Sudeep Sharma, Rohan Naidu, Pooja Pandey
For the Respondents: M. M. Deshmukh, Anil Singh, Kuldeep Patil, Adarsh Vyas, Digvijay S. Kachare, Krishnakant Deshmukh, Anay Joshi, Yukta Sawant, Sanika Joshi, Saili Dhuru, Sumitkumar Nimbalkar
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Milan Desai, Sudeep Sharma, Rohan Naidu, Pooja Pandey
For the Respondents: M. M. Deshmukh, Anil Singh, Kuldeep Patil, Adarsh Vyas, Digvijay S. Kachare, Krishnakant Deshmukh, Anay Joshi, Yukta Sawant, Sanika Joshi, Saili Dhuru, Sumitkumar Nimbalkar
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners contend detention is illegal due to lack of cognizance and remand orders, while the prosecution argues trial courts properly exercised jurisdiction and cognizance is implied from orders. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 )
3. The court found that the Special Judge lacked jurisdiction and no valid order of cognizance or remand was passed by the transferee court, rendering the continued custody illegal. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 46 , 47 , 48 )
4. A Magistrate must take judicial notice of an offence and pass a valid remand warrant for custody to be lawful; cognizance is not automatic upon transfer. (Para 41 , 42 , 45 , 46 )
5. The court declared the continued detention illegal and ordered the release of the petitioners on bail subject to conditions, while permitting potential re-arrest following due process. (Para 49 , 51 )
6. What constitutes 'taking cognizance' of an offence by a Magistrate?
Cognizance entails a conscious application of mind by the Magistrate to the information received, satisfying themselves that an offence occurred and that proceedings must be initiated through judicial notice of the commission of an offence. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 )
7. Is a Magistrate required to pass a remand warrant for an accused already in custody?
Yes, when a trial is adjourned or postponed, the Court must remand the accused by issuing a warrant. Merely noting the next date of hearing or continuing proceedings without a specific remand order or warrant is insufficient to authorize legal detention. (Para 39 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 )
JUDGMENT :
(PER SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
1. The arguments were heard at length, Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with consent of the parties.
2. Heard Mr. Milan Desai, learned counsel for the VBG IHO NAK OSH DKAALRE DsVBGD21+ i 04 IHO i a g 0 Ng 2:t n 5 A 4 K i e6 Ot 3 e 2 SH: a . d 0 D 1: K l 2 A l 0 by A 2 L . y 2 RE 1 Petitioners, Ms. M. M. Deshmukh, learned APP for the State- Respondent No.1 and Mr. Anil Singh, learned ASG with Mr. Kuldeep Patil, learned Special P.P. for the CBI-Respondent No.2.
3. The Petitioner No.1 Shaibaz Shaikh is the original accused No.5 and the Petitioner No.2 Sameer Siroha is the original Accused No.3 in R.C.C.No.77 of 2026 before the court of J.M.F.C., Igatpuri, Dist. Nashik. The petition is filed for their release, as according to the Petitioners, they are illegally detained.
4. In this case, the charge-sheet is already filed and the case is at the stage of framing of the charges. At the outset, we may mention that the allegations in the charge-sheet are quite serious. The FIR was lodged at CBI, EOB, Mumbai, on 08.08.2025 vide the FIR No. RC0682025E0005, under sections 61(2) r/w. 318(2), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’), under sections 7(a) and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) (hereinafter referred to as ‘PC Act’), under sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and under sections 3(1) and 42(1) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023.
5. The gist of the FIR is that the investigating agency received a credible information from a reliable source that a group of private persons including the Petitioners entered into criminal conspiracy and committed financial fraud by impersonation by making phishing calls/deceptive calls, from an illegal call centre, posing as Amazon Support Services Call Centre. They cheated senior citizens of US, Canada and other countries and fraudulently obtained the proceeds of crime via Gift Cards, Cryptocurrency. The call centre was located at Igatpuri, Nashik. It was alleged that the Cyber fraudsters were helped by various unknown public servants of various Public and Private Sector banks in India for opening/operating of various mule accounts, for transferring the Cyber fraud proceeds through the means of various laptops, mobiles, computers and other electronic devices and network devices.
6. The charge-sheet gives details of the investigation carried out. According to the investigating agency, as mentioned in the charge-sheet, Sandeep Singh and Vishal Yadav were the main persons running this fake call centre with the active assistance of both the Petitioners and few others. The modus operandi of the Cyber fraud was as follows:
Initially, a message/voice mail is broadcast to the unknown innocent foreign nationals of USA and Canada through cloud servers purportedly at the behest of Amazon Service and support Centre. In response to the said message by trusting the said message, the foreign nationals call back the provided contact details mentioned in the message/voice mail. The International VOIP calls made by the foreign nationals were routed through the cloud servers/exchanges like VICI Dial. The agents present at the fake/illegal call centre attended the calls and by gaining their confidence they used to obtain their financial details and convinced them to transfer the funds for cancellation of orders which otherwise were not placed by those foreign nationals. Thus, the funds were then transferred through Cryptocurrency or gift vouchers in the wallets provided by the accused persons. The accused used digital means in the call centre to extort money and thus, committed Cyber fraud. It is alleged that, they were helped by various unknown public servants of various public and private sector banks in India for transferring the Cyber fraud proceeds through the means of various laptops, mobiles, computers and other electronic devices and network devices.
7. On 09.
