A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice Sarang V. Kotwal and Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale has ruled that detaining an accused without an order taking cognizance and without a valid remand warrant issued by a competent court is illegal. Allowing a criminal writ petition, the High Court directed the release on bail of two men accused of running an international cyber fraud racket, holding that statutory procedural safeguards cannot be bypassed irrespective of the gravity of allegations.
Background of the Case
The case stems from an FIR registered on August 8, 2025, by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Economic Offences Branch, Mumbai, under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the Telecommunications Act, 2023.
The prosecution alleged that the accused operated an illegal call centre at Rain Forest Resort in Igatpuri, Nashik. Posing as Amazon Support Services, the operators sent phishing voicemails to citizens in the United States and Canada, routed calls through cloud servers, fraudulently obtained financial credentials, and siphoned money via cryptocurrency and gift cards.
Following a raid on August 9, 2025, the CBI arrested multiple individuals, including the petitioners—Sameer Siroha (Accused No. 3), who allegedly handled IT infrastructure, and Shaibaz Kaiser Ateeq Shaikh (Accused No. 5), a purported team leader. After transit remand from the Judicial Magistrate First Class (J.M.F.C.), Igatpuri, they were produced before the Special Judge for CBI cases in Pune, who remanded them to custody from time to time.
On November 3, 2025, the CBI filed its charge-sheet before the Special Judge, Pune, under sections of the BNS and IT Act, notably omitting any offences under the PC Act or charges against public servants. On February 12, 2026, the Special Judge held that because the charge-sheet lacked PC Act offences, the Special Court was not empowered to take cognizance. Invoking Section 361 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the Special Court transferred the case (R.C.C. No. 77 of 2026) to the J.M.F.C., Igatpuri, for taking cognizance and trial.
Arguments of the Parties
Appearing for the petitioners, counsel Milan Desai submitted that their continued detention was unauthorized and illegal because neither court had taken cognizance after the charge-sheet was filed. Relying on State through CBI New Delhi v. Jitender Kumar Singh, he argued that trying a PC Act offence is a jurisdictional prerequisite for a Special Judge. He further contended that upon transfer, the J.M.F.C., Igatpuri, failed to take cognizance or issue remand warrants under Section 232 or Section 346 of the BNSS, citing Lalankumar Singh & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra to stress that cognizance requires conscious judicial application of mind.
Opposing the plea, Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh and Special Public Prosecutor Kuldeep Patil for the CBI argued that the petitioners were involved in serious cyber fraud and had repeatedly been denied bail by lower courts. Citing State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Kusum Sahu, they contended that writ petitions should not circumvent regular bail mechanisms. Relying on S. K. Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Ltd., State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta, and Kallu Nat alias Mayank Kumar Nagar v. State of U.P., the CBI argued that cognizance requires no formal order and was evidenced when the Magistrate permitted interrogation and further investigation under Section 193(9) of the BNSS. Relying on the Gujarat High Court’s ruling in Vinodbhai Tilakdhari Tiwari v. State of Gujarat, the prosecution maintained that formal re-remand orders are unnecessary when an accused is already in custody.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court rejected the CBI’s preliminary objection, holding that the petition raised foundational jurisdictional questions regarding unauthorized detention.
Examining Sections 3 and 4 of the PC Act, the Bench observed that the Special Judge lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance of a police report devoid of PC Act allegations:
“While trying a case involving the offence under the PC Act, the learned Special Judge had jurisdiction to try any other offence specified in Section 3 of the PC Act with which the accused could be charged at the same trial. However, when there was no offence under the PC Act, then the learned Special Judge appointed U/s.3 of the PC Act had no jurisdiction to try the case or even to take cognizance. In the present case, it is more prominent because none of the accused is a public servant and the charge-sheet is not filed for commission of any offence under the PC Act.”
Reviewing the record before the J.M.F.C., Igatpuri, the Bench noted that the Magistrate had neither applied his mind to take cognizance nor issued remand orders:
“Thus, this is not a case where the remand orders are invalid, but this is a case where the learned Magistrate has not taken cognizance and then has not passed the remand orders.”
The Court held that permissions granted for interrogation or further investigation did not amount to taking cognizance, which is a condition precedent to initiating criminal proceedings. Interpreting Section 346(2) of the BNSS, the Bench stressed:
“Sub Section 2 of Section 346 of the BNSS is in two parts. The first part is about adjourning the trial and the second important part is about remanding the accused. The exact wording used is ‘and may by a warrant remand the accused if in custody’. In the present case, no record was produced before us showing that the learned Magistrate had remanded the accused by a warrant. There are not even directions issued to the Jail Superintendent to keep the accused in custody. The custody of the Petitioners is without any authorization by the learned Magistrate as he has not taken cognizance and has not passed subsequent remand orders.”
Addressing Vinodbhai Tiwari, the Bench clarified that while the 15-day ceiling might not apply to persons already in custody, the court must still remand the accused by issuing a warrant.
The Decision
Holding that procedural mandates were completely breached, the High Court concluded:
“As a result of the above discussion, we find that the detention of the Petitioners in jail is without any authorization by a competent Court and, hence, their detention is illegal. Consequently, they will have to be released from their detention.”
The Court declared the continued detention of both petitioners illegal and directed their release on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1 lakh each with sureties, subject to conditions including surrendering passports and reporting weekly to the CBI. The Court clarified that the CBI remains at liberty to rearrest the petitioners by following the due procedure established by law.
Case Details
Case Title: Shaibaz Kaiser Ateeq Shaikh & Anr. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case No.: Criminal Writ Petition No. 1100 of 2026
Bench: Justice Sarang V. Kotwal & Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale
Date: 21 October 2026
