Court refuses bail to man accused of sheltering shooter

The court noted that Shivkumar Gautam’s confession “attributes a specific role to the applicant in providing aid and harbour to the principal accused”

MUMBAI: A special Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) court on Monday rejected the bail plea of Aakash Brijkumar Shrivastava, 27, accused of providing assistance and shelter to Shivkumar Gautam who allegedly shot former minister Baba Siddique dead in October 2024.

Former minister Baba Siddique was shot dead in October 2024 (Hindustan Times)

Special Judge Satyanarayan R Navander held that the prosecution had placed sufficient prima facie material against Shrivastava, including two confessional statements recorded under MCOCA, witness statements about his association with other accused, call records and the circumstances in which he was apprehended along with Gautam and another accused while allegedly heading towards the Nepal border on November 10, 2024.

The court noted that Gautam’s confession “attributes a specific role to the applicant in providing aid and harbour to the principal accused” while the confession of another accused, Harish Kumar Kashyap, allegedly detailed meetings involving Shrivastava, discussions relating to the conspiracy and the activities and movements of the group.

Shrivastava’s lawyer Raj Dali argued that his client had no connection with the principal accused or the alleged organised crime syndicate, had not participated in the shooting or conspiracy, and that the co-accused confessions had been retracted. He also questioned the legality of his arrest and argued that there was no evidence that Shrivastava had received money for the alleged crime or harbouring an accused.

Judge Navander, however, held that “retraction (of the confessions) by itself does not warrant complete exclusion of the statements from consideration at the stage of bail” and their voluntariness, admissibility and evidentiary value would have to be examined at trial. He also rejected the argument that “absence of proof of monetary consideration” could be treated as “conclusive in favour of the applicant”.

On the arrest challenge, the court said the issue could be examined at the appropriate stage, and the material had to be considered cumulatively for the purpose of the stringent MCOCA bail provision. Holding that the confessional statements, witness accounts, call records and circumstances of Shrivastava’s apprehension prima facie indicated that his alleged role extended beyond mere acquaintance with Gautam, it said that Shrivastava had failed to satisfy the mandatory requirement for bail under MCOCA.

The court concluded that the material “prima facie connects him with the principal accused and the persons alleged to be members of the organised crime syndicate” and indicates his alleged involvement in the conspiracy and in providing assistance to the principal accused after the offence.