The Bombay High Court on Thursday (May 7, 2026) denied bail to Chetan Paradhi, a person accused in the murder case of Baba Siddiqui. A single-judge Bench of Justice Ravindra Joshi found prima facie material against Paradhi under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act (MCOCA). Siddiqui, who had been a Maharashtra Minister, was killed on October 12, 2024, in Mumbai’s Bandra area.

Siddiqui was shot by three persons when he was about to enter his car after meeting his son Zeeshan in Bandra East. Six bullets were fired at him. He was hit near abdomen and chest, resulting in his death. The prosecution has alleged that the Lawrence Bishnoi gang conspired to kill Siddiqui. A total of 27 persons have been named in the case.

Paradhi, in his bail application, said he was being falsely implicated. He argued that the charge-sheet had no material to show he was a member of the syndicate or had committed the crime. He said the prosecution relied only on confessional statements of co-accused Pradip, Sambhaji, and Nitin. Paradhi added that his acquaintance with these co-accused led to routine phone calls, and the Call Data Records (CDRs) were not evidence against him. On the prosecution’s claim that a vehicle used in the crime was also used by Paradhi on August 15, 2024 for his wife’s birthday, he did not admit any link.

The prosecution argued that sufficient evidence existed to show Paradhi’s involvement. The counsel for Siddiqui’s wife said the confessional statement of a co-accused recorded under Section 18 of MCOCA showed that Paradhi had knowledge of the crime to be committed by the syndicate.

Justice Joshi noted that Section 21(4) of MCOCA states that a court cannot grant bail unless it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused has not committed the crime and will not commit a crime if released. The judge said the prima facie evidence and the antecedent against Paradhi did not allow the court to record such satisfaction.

The court observed that the applicant was named in a co-accused’s statement, and there was material to show the applicant had knowledge of the conspiracy. The judge said that once Paradhi knew that a person he had received was there to commit murder, he should have distanced himself. Instead, the CDRs showed he remained in contact with the co-accused after such disclosure. The court held that the CDRs were an incriminating circumstance.

Justice Joshi found substance in the arguments of the prosecution and the intervenor (Siddiqui’s wife) and dismissed the bail plea.