Bombay High Court Refuses Bail In Former State Minister Baba Siddique Murder Case, Says Co-Accused Confession Admissible Under MCOCA
The Bombay High Court on Thursday (May 7) denied bail to a man booked in the murder case of former Maharashtra Minister Baba Siddiqui, who was shot to death in broad daylight on October 12, 2024 at Mumbai's plush Bandra area. At least three assailants had opened fire against Siddiqui, while he was about to enter his car after meeting his son Zeeshan in Bandra East. A total of six bullets...
The Bombay High Court on Thursday (May 7) denied bail to a man booked in the murder case of former Maharashtra Minister Baba Siddiqui, who was shot to death in broad daylight on October 12, 2024 at Mumbai's plush Bandra area.
At least three assailants had opened fire against Siddiqui, while he was about to enter his car after meeting his son Zeeshan in Bandra East. A total of six bullets were fired at him, some of which hit him in abdomen and chest, due to which, he died. It is alleged that the Lawrence Bishnoi gang has conspired to kill Siddiqui.
Single-judge Justice Ravindra Joshi found 'prima facie' material against Chetan Paradhi, who is said to have been a member of the 'organised syndicate' which conspired to eliminate Siddiqui. There are a total of 27 persons, named in this case.
"The Applicant has been named specifically in the statement (of a co-accused) so also the statement indicating that the Applicant had knowledge about the conspiracy of killing someone. This Court therefore finds substance in contention of the counsel appearing on behalf of the Intervenor (Siddiqui's Wife) that once it was within the knowledge of the Applicant that the person to whom, he along with others received, had been there for committing murder, and therefore he ought to have distanced himself from that man. Instead of doing so, prima facie there is material on record to show that the Applicant was in contact with the co-accused even after such disclosure being made to him. Thus, CDR could be considered as incriminating circumstance against the Applicant," Justice Joshi held in the order.
The judge referred to section 21(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act (MCOCA) which provides that unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the Applicant has not committed the crime in question and if enlarged on bail, he would not commit crime, the Court would not get jurisdiction to pass order of bail.
"Considering prima facie evidence on record against Applicant, so also antecedent against him, this Court finds no reason to record any satisfaction with regard to the twin conditions i.e. embargo created by Section 21(4) of the MCOCA. In absence of compliance of these conditions, no bail could be granted to the Applicant," the judge held.
Paradhi, in his bail application, contended that he was being falsely implicated in the instant crime. He claimed that there is no material in the charge-sheet to show that he was the member of the organised crime syndicate and has committed the present crime. He pointed out that the prosecution only relies on the confessional statements of co-accused Pradip, Sambhaji and Nitin, without further brining any incriminating material on record.
In his plea, Paradhi argued that just because he had some acquaintance with these co-accused named in the case, there were obvious chances that he would have exchanged certain calls and thus, the Call Data Records (CDRs) relied heavily by the prosecution are not fatal against his case.
With regards, the specific contention of the prosecution, that Paradhi had used a vehicle on August 15, 2024 for celebrating his wife's birthday the same vehicle was used in the crime.
On the other hand, the prosecution contended that there was sufficient evidence on record to prima facie come to the conclusion that there is involvement of the Applicant in the crime in question. It argued that at this stage the Court is required to take into consideration the material on record as it is without deciding the correctness or otherwise thereof.
Further, Siddiqui's wife's counsel argued that the confessional statement of the co-accused recorded under Section 18 of the MCOCA clearly indicates the knowledge of the Applicant with regard to the crime which was to be committed by the syndicate.
The Court said fairly settled to say that the confessional statement of the co-accused is admissible in evidence and the same would not only bind the person making such statement but also becomes an evidence against the co-accused.
"In this circumstance, if the calls are made by the Applicant to the co-accused and that too substantial calls, the same becomes incriminating circumstance against him. There is enough material on record to show involvement of the Applicant in this crime," the counsel argued.
Justice Joshi, found substance in the arguments put forth by the intervenor and also the prosecution and therefore, dismissed the bail plea.
Appearance:
Advocate Ameya Pitale appeared for the Applicant.
Special Public Prosecutor Mahesh Mule alongwith Advocates Nidhi Narvekar, Parth Gawde and Additional Public Prosecutor Irfan Sait represented the State.
Senior Advocate Abad Ponda along with Advocates Anas Shaikh and Neha Balani represented the Intervenor.
Case Title: Chetan Dilip Paradhi vs State of Maharashtra (Bail Application 3774 of 2025)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 240