A Phone Call Doesn't Make You a Gangster: Bombay HC Shreds Mumbai Police’s Flimsy MCOCA Case in the Baba Siddiqui Murder

The Hook: When the Police Cast Too Wide a Net

In high-profile organized crime investigations, investigating agencies have developed a predictable, and frankly lazy, habit: cast a massive net, arrest anyone in the accused's call detail records (CDRs), slap the draconian Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) on them, and let the trial courts sort out the mess. It is a strategy of prosecution by exhaustion.

But in a refreshing reality check for the Mumbai Police, the Bombay High Court’s recent judgment in Akashdeep Karaj Singh vs State of Maharashtra (Decided on 9 February 2026) draws a hard line in the sand. Dealing with a bail application in the sensational murder of former Maharashtra Minister Baba Siddiqui—a hit allegedly orchestrated by the notorious Bishnoi syndicate—Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale dismantled a prosecution case built on digital breadcrumbs, geographical profiling, and "vibes" rather than hard evidence.

For defense lawyers handling MCOCA, UAPA, or PMLA matters where clients are roped in as peripheral conspirators, this judgment is a masterclass in how to weaponize the prosecution’s own charge-sheet to secure bail under notoriously impossible statutory embargoes.

The Facts: The Boy with the Borrowed Hotspot

The underlying facts are well-known: On 12 October 2024, Baba Siddiqui was gunned down in Bandra by three assailants. The investigation soon traced the hit to the organized crime syndicate run by Lawrence and Anmol Bishnoi. The police invoked MCOCA and eventually rounded up 27 people.

Enter our Applicant, Akashdeep Karaj Singh, arraigned as Accused No. 24. Akashdeep is a 22-year-old boy from Pakkachisti, a village in Punjab’s Fazilka district. Crucially, this happens to be the same native district as gang leader Anmol Bishnoi.

The Mumbai Police’s case against Akashdeep rested on four highly circumstantial pillars:

1. On 7 October 2024, Akashdeep borrowed the internet hotspot of a local farmhand to make two calls to Accused No. 15 (Sujit Singh, a key conspirator).
2. He made vague "international calls" during the material period.
3. His phone contained photographs of him posing with firearms.
4. He allegedly deposited money in an ATM in Punjab, which ended up in a Mumbai SBI account belonging to a friend of a co-accused.

The Arguments: Geographical Profiling vs. Hard Evidence

Special Public Prosecutor Mahesh Mule argued that the digital footprint—the hotspot calls to a known conspirator and international calls—proved Akashdeep was an active member of the Bishnoi syndicate, coordinating with overseas handlers. The SPP heavily leaned on the fact that Akashdeep hailed from Anmol Bishnoi’s turf, treating his pincode as circumstantial evidence of gang affiliation.

Advocate Abhishek Yende, representing the Applicant, took a sharper tactical route. Instead of merely offering denials, he used the prosecution's star evidence against them. He pointed out that the police had recorded detailed confessional statements of Accused No. 15 (Sujit Singh) and Accused No. 5 (Nitin Sapre). Both men had sung like canaries, detailing the conspiracy, the recruitment, and the weapons procurement. Yet, neither of them mentioned Akashdeep. Yende further argued that the international calls were to relatives in Canada, and a mere two calls to A-15 could not establish a criminal nexus.

The Judgment: Deconstructing Section 21(4) of MCOCA

Justice Gokhale granted bail, navigating the treacherous waters of Section 21(4) of MCOCA, which requires the court to be satisfied that there are "reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty" and is unlikely to commit future offenses.

Relying on the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma vs State of Maharashtra (2005 5 SCC 294), the Court held that the prosecution's evidence was hopelessly inadequate to trigger the MCOCA embargo:

"Merely putting through a call to the mobile phone of A-15 prima facie does not connect the Applicant with the organised crime syndicate, unless it is demonstrated that the Applicant had knowledge of A-15 being engaged in assisting in any manner, an organised crime syndicate."

The Court systematically shredded the rest of the State's case. The international calls? The police hadn't even bothered to identify the receivers, making it a "bare allegation." The gun photos? Akashdeep's father held a valid arms license until 2018, and the murder weapons were independently traced to Rajasthan. The ATM deposit? The prosecution failed to produce a shred of documentary evidence linking Akashdeep to the specific transaction, relying instead on the lazy logic that because the money was deposited in a Punjab ATM, and Akashdeep is from Punjab, he must be the depositor.

The Critique: A Takedown of Lazy Policing

I completely agree with Justice Gokhale’s reasoning, but let’s speak plainly about what this judgment exposes: the Mumbai Police’s investigation into peripheral accused was embarrassingly sloppy.

The State’s reliance on Akashdeep’s native village as proof of his syndicate membership is a textbook example of geographical profiling. It is the legal equivalent of saying anyone from Wasseypur who owns a phone is part of a local gang. Furthermore, claiming an accused made "international calls" to coordinate a hit, but failing to trace the receivers of those calls before opposing bail, borders on prosecutorial malpractice.

Advocate Yende deserves immense credit for his strategy regarding the confessional statements. In MCOCA cases, confessions to a police officer are admissible. The defense brilliantly highlighted the "eloquent absence" of the Applicant's name in these detailed confessions. If A-15 was taking directions from Akashdeep via the hotspot calls, why didn't A-15 mention him while confessing to the entire plot? This argument effectively neutralized the CDR evidence. The State had no answer to this logic.

However, one could argue the SPP missed a trick. If the prosecution wanted to establish mens rea for the phone calls, they should have focused on the surrounding circumstances of the hotspot usage. Why did the Applicant need a farmhand's hotspot to make "1-2 important calls"? Was he avoiding his own IP footprint? The State failed to build a narrative around this suspicious behavior, treating the mere existence of the call as a silver bullet. When you are dealing with a statute as severe as MCOCA, courts demand more than just a call log; they demand context.

The Takeaway for Practitioners

This judgment is a crucial precedent for criminal defense lawyers dealing with special statutes (MCOCA, NDPS, UAPA) where the State relies heavily on CDRs to establish conspiracy (Section 120B IPC / Section 111 BNS).

Here are the key lessons:

• Attack the Mens Rea of the Call: A phone call is an act (actus reus). It is not a crime unless the prosecution proves the caller’s knowledge of the receiver's criminal enterprise. Always demand that the State prove the content or the guilty context of the call.
• Cross-Reference Confessions: If your client is a fringe player, meticulously read the confessional statements of the main conspirators. If they detail the plot but omit your client's name, use that "eloquent silence" as your primary weapon for bail.
• Challenge "Vibe-Based" Evidence: Do not let the prosecution get away with vague assertions like "international calls were made" or "money was deposited." Demand the forensic extraction reports, the KYC details of the receivers, and the CCTV footage of the ATM. If the State hasn't attached it to their affidavit, argue that the evidence doesn't exist.

Ultimately, Akashdeep Karaj Singh is a timely reminder to law enforcement: you cannot use the sheer gravity of a crime to bypass the fundamental requirement of evidence. A phone call is just a phone call, and a photo with a licensed gun does not make a 22-year-old an international hitman.