Bare Allegation Of Calls To Bishnoi Syndicate Insufficient To Show Complicity: Bombay HC Grants Bail In Former Minister Baba Siddique Murder Case

The High Court held that a bare allegation that the applicant made international calls to supporters of the Bishnoi organised crime syndicate, without any supporting material identifying the recipients or demonstrating nexus with the alleged crime, was insufficient to establish prima facie complicity.

The Court was hearing a bail application filed by an accused alleged to be connected with an organised crime syndicate in relation to the murder of the former minister.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Neela Gokhale examined whether the material placed by the prosecution satisfied the statutory threshold required to oppose bail in cases involving organised crime allegations. The Bench observed: “…although an allegation is made regarding complicity of the Applicant in participation in the Organised Crime Syndicate of the Bishnoi brothers, based on some international calls alleged to have been made by the Applicant, no effort is made by the prosecution to identify the receivers of the said calls”.

The Bench therefore held that “A bare allegation unsupported by any material that the Applicant made international calls to supporters of the Organised Crime Syndicate in Canada, does not indicate his complicity in the offence.”

Background

The prosecution case arose from an investigation into the murder of former minister Baba Siddique, in which several accused were alleged to be associated with an organised crime syndicate. The applicant was implicated on the basis of alleged communication records and assertions of association with members or supporters of the syndicate operating outside India.

The applicant contended that the allegations were speculative and unsupported by any verifiable material linking him to the organised crime network or the commission of the offence. It was argued that mere reference to international calls, without identification of recipients or corroborative evidence, could not satisfy the statutory requirements to deny bail.

Court’s Observations

The Bombay High Court began by outlining the statutory threshold governing bail under Section 21(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), emphasising that bail can be granted only where the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail.

Examining the prosecution’s case against the applicant, the Court noted that the core allegation rested on two phone calls allegedly made by the applicant to a co-accused using another person’s internet hotspot. While the mobile extraction material indicated that such calls were made, the Court held that, at this stage, the mere act of placing calls, without contextual evidence linking them to the conspiracy, was found insufficient to establish prima facie complicity in an organised crime syndicate.

The Bench observed that no effort had been made to identify the recipients of those calls or to produce supporting material establishing their connection with organised crime. The Court further stated that such unsupported assertions did not satisfy the statutory threshold required to deny bail under MCOCA.

Turning to the confessional statements of co-accused persons, the Court conducted a detailed review and found that neither of the key confessional narratives implicated the applicant in the planning or execution of the offence. The statements, the Court found, described the structure, recruitment, and operational mechanics of the syndicate in considerable detail, yet the applicant’s name was absent.

The Bench also considered the prosecution’s reliance on a photograph allegedly showing the applicant holding a firearm. It held that the existence of such an image, without any nexus to the weapon used in the crime or to the alleged conspiracy, did not advance the prosecution’s case.

Similarly, allegations regarding a cash deposit purportedly linked to the syndicate were found to be unsupported by affidavit material or documentary evidence capable of establishing financial assistance to organised crime.

While acknowledging the seriousness of the offences attributed to the organised crime syndicate and the gravity of the underlying murder investigation, the Court reiterated that statutory rigour cannot substitute evidentiary linkage.

Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court on bail under special statutes, the Bench observed that its role at this stage was to assess broad probabilities and the sufficiency of prosecution material, not to conduct a mini-trial.

On that assessment, the Court found that the material presently relied upon did not justify a prima facie conclusion that the accusations against the applicant were true within the meaning of Section 21(4) MCOCA.

Addressing the second limb of the statutory embargo, the likelihood of future offences, the Court noted the applicant’s young age, absence of criminal antecedents, and the limited nature of the alleged interaction with co-accused persons. These factors led the Bench to conclude that the risk of reoffending was not substantiated on the present record.

Balancing the statutory framework, evidentiary deficiencies, and broader bail jurisprudence, the Court held that the embargo under Section 21(4) did not apply to the applicant in the circumstances of the case. The observations were expressly recorded as prima facie in nature, confined to bail adjudication, and not determinative of the merits of the trial.

Conclusion

Finding that the prosecution failed to place material demonstrating prima facie complicity of the applicant with the alleged organised crime syndicate, the applicant was accordingly granted bail, subject to conditions ensuring cooperation with the investigation and safeguarding the integrity of the proceedings.

Cause Title: Akashdeep Karaj Singh v. The State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:6589)

Appearances

Appellant: Advocates Surbhi Agrawal, Shubham Kahite & Sagar P

Respondents: Mahesh Mule, SPP; Parth Gawde & Megha S. Bajoria, APP; Advocates Pradip Gharat, Trivankumar Karnani, Hritika Jannawar & Sumit Jadhav

Click here to read/download Judgment