Mere Calls Do Not Make a Man a Criminal: Bombay High Court Grants Bail in Baba Siddiqui Murder Case, Questions MCOCA Invocation

“There Are Reasonable Grounds to Believe the Applicant Is Not Guilty of Organised Crime” – In a case that has gripped Maharashtra’s political and legal circles, the Bombay High Court on 9 February 2026 granted bail to Akashdeep Karaj Singh, a 22-year-old man accused under MCOCA for his alleged involvement in the assassination of former State Minister Baba Siddiqui. In a reasoned and significant judgment, Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale held that the prosecution had failed to produce any material demonstrating that Singh had knowledge of or participated in any organised crime, despite the gravity of the allegations.

“This Court is 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 MCOCA are prima facie true,” observed Justice Gokhale, dismantling the State’s opposition to bail under the draconian provisions of Section 21(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999.

“Allegations of International Calls and Firearm Photos Cannot Substantiate Organised Crime Links in Absence of Nexus”

Singh was arrested in connection with the October 2024 murder of Baba Siddiqui, gunned down outside his son’s office in Mumbai. While the actual shooters were arrested at the scene, the prosecution expanded the case to include a larger conspiracy allegedly orchestrated by gangster Anmol Bishnoi, invoking MCOCA against 27 individuals.

But when it came to Singh, the State had little more than two phone calls to co-accused Sujit Singh (A-15), an alleged international call, and a photograph of Singh holding a firearm. None of these, in the Court’s view, amounted to sufficient material to apply the harsh rigours of MCOCA bail restrictions.

“Mere telephonic contact with an accused cannot establish complicity unless a nexus with the organised crime is demonstrated,” noted the Court. It further found that “no effort was made by the prosecution to identify the recipients of the alleged international calls,” and that Singh had explained the calls were made to relatives in Canada.

The much-emphasised firearm photograph found on Singh’s phone also failed to sway the Court, which remarked, “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.”

“Conspicuous Silence in Confessional Statements – When Even Co-Accused Do Not Name the Applicant”

In a striking observation, the Court noted that the prosecution’s own key confessional statements—recorded from co-accused A-5 Nitin Sapre and A-15 Sujit Singh—did not mention Singh at all.

“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. The Applicant’s name is eloquently absent,” the Court noted, underlining a critical omission that weakened the prosecution’s narrative.

Even the vague claim that Singh deposited money in an ATM in Punjab, which later reached an accused’s associate in Mumbai, was dismissed as speculative. “Mere fact that the applicant belongs to Punjab and the money was deposited in an ATM in Punjab, does not per se establish that the applicant rendered financial assistance to the organised crime syndicate,” Justice Gokhale held.

“Section 21(4) MCOCA Requires Substantial Probable Cause – Not Presumptive Guilt Based on Proximity or Youth”

The judgment is a crucial reaffirmation of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of MCOCA bail conditions, particularly in Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav and Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma, where the apex court clarified that “reasonable grounds” under Section 21(4) require more than suspicion, but less than conclusive proof.

Justice Gokhale, applying that framework, ruled that the prosecution failed to cross the legal threshold, stating:

“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.”

She further found that there was no likelihood of re-offending, noting Singh’s clean record, young age, and absence of criminal antecedents. “The alleged brush with one of the co-accused is limited to a phone call made to him,” she observed, adding, “it is unlikely that he will commit any offence in future.”

“Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because of the Seriousness of the Crime if the Evidence Does Not Link the Individual”

The Court took note of the emotional pitch made by the intervenor—Shehzeen Siddiqui, widow of the slain minister—who opposed bail on the ground that Singh had “no cause nor occasion” to make international calls. However, Justice Gokhale maintained that judicial discretion cannot be replaced by public sentiment, especially where the prosecution lacks substantive evidence.

“Bail cannot be withheld solely based on gravity when the materials do not reveal an accused’s role,” the Court cautioned, relying on the settled position of law that stringent statutes like MCOCA must be balanced with the rights of the individual.

“Findings Are Prima Facie and Do Not Influence the Trial” – Bombay High Court Directs Strict Compliance with Bail Terms

While allowing the bail, the Court directed Singh to execute a personal bond of ₹1,00,000, report regularly to the DCB/CID, surrender his passport, not tamper with evidence, and cooperate fully with the trial process. He has also been barred from leaving Maharashtra without the Trial Court’s permission.

“These findings are only prima facie and confined to this Applicant and this Application only,” the Court clarified, giving a clear mandate that the trial must proceed uninfluenced by these observations.

Date of Decision: 9 February 2026