A special MCOCA court on September 21 rejected the bail application of Aakash Brijkumar Srivastav, an accused in the alleged organised-crime conspiracy behind the murder of former Maharashtra Minister Baba Siddique, holding that the material placed by the prosecution prima facie indicated that his alleged role went beyond mere acquaintance with the principal accused.

Special Judge Satyanarayan R. Navander said witness statements regarding Mr. Srivastav’s association with the other accused, call records and the circumstances in which he was apprehended with co-accused Shivkumar Gautam and Harish Kumar Kashyap had to be considered cumulatively.

The court said these circumstances, along with two confessional statements recorded under Section 18 of MCOCA, prima facie connected him to the alleged conspiracy.

Rejecting Mr. Srivastav’s argument that he had not participated in the actual shooting, the court said this alone was insufficient to meet the stringent bail requirements under Section 21(4) of MCOCA. The court noted that the prosecution case against him was based on his alleged association with the organised crime syndicate, participation in the conspiracy and assistance provided to the main accused after the murder.

The court also referred to the bail proceedings of co-accused Akhilendra Pratap Sureshsingh, whose plea had earlier been rejected by the Bombay High Court on April 24. In his case, the High Court had considered material relating to the alleged harbouring of the assailants, a Section 18 MCOCA confession, call records and his apprehension with other accused.

The special court clarified that the High Court order was not determinative of Mr. Srivastav’s plea but supported the view that such material was relevant while considering bail.

Mr. Sureshsingh subsequently challenged the High Court order before the Supreme Court. On September 21, a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran said it found “no good ground to interfere” with the High Court’s order and dismissed his Special Leave Petition. Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.

Mr. Srivastav was apprehended in Uttar Pradesh on November 10, 2024, along with Mr. Gautam and other co-accused and was formally arrested the following day. According to the prosecution, the group had left their native place and was proceeding towards the Nepal border when they were intercepted.

The prosecution relied particularly on the confessional statements of Mr. Gautam and Mr. Kashyap. Mr. Gautam’s statement allegedly attributed to Mr. Srivastav a role in providing aid and harbour after the murder, while Mr. Kashyap’s statement referred to meetings involving MR. Srivastav and other accused, discussions concerning the alleged conspiracy and the activities of the alleged organised crime syndicate.

Witness statements also allegedly showed that Mr. Srivastav was associated with Mr. Gautam and several other accused, and that members of the group used to meet and discuss plans at Mr. Sureshsingh’s shop.

Mr. Srivastav’s lawyer had argued that he was not involved in the shooting, was not a member of an organised crime syndicate and that the confessional statements relied upon by the prosecution had been retracted. The defence also questioned the circumstances of his arrest and argued that there was no evidence of him receiving money in connection with the alleged conspiracy or harbouring of an accused.

The court, however, held that retraction alone did not warrant excluding the confessional statements at the bail stage and that questions regarding their admissibility and evidentiary value would have to be examined during trial. It ultimately held that Mr. Srivastav had failed to satisfy the requirements under Section 21(4) of MCOCA and rejected his bail plea.