Court Orders Release on Bail of Accused Linked to Fake Call Centre Scam, Allows Rearrest Following Due Procedure
In a landmark judgment delivered on October 21, 2026, the Bombay High Court (Division Bench) ruled that the continued detention of two accused persons in a high-profile cyber fraud case was illegal due to procedural lapses concerning cognizance and remand orders by the courts involved. The accused, Shaibaz Kaiser Ateeq Shaikh and Sameer Siroha, were implicated in operating an illegal call centre at Igatpuri, Nashik, which defrauded foreign nationals through phishing and impersonation, involving fraudulent transfers via gift cards and cryptocurrency.
The case originated from an FIR lodged by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Economic Offences Branch in Mumbai, encompassing charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act), 1988, Information Technology Act, 2000, and the Telecommunications Act, 2023. The FIR alleged a sophisticated conspiracy involving private individuals and unknown public servants aiding the conversion of fraud proceeds through mule accounts in various banks.
While the initial investigations and arrests were lawful, the crux of the legal issue arose after the filing of the charge-sheet. The charge-sheet, filed on November 3, 2025, did not include any offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, thus stripping the Special Judge for CBI cases at Pune of jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter. The Special Judge recognized this jurisdictional defect and transferred the case to the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) at Igatpuri for taking cognizance and trial as per law.
However, the Bombay High Court found that the JMFC had not passed any formal order of cognizance nor issued remand warrants or specific directions authorizing the continued custody of the accused. The court observed that mere notation in the court's roznama about the accused being produced via video conferencing and the listing of next dates does not amount to taking cognizance or valid remand. This lack of formal judicial sanction meant that the accused's detention was not authorized by any competent court, rendering it illegal.
The Court carefully analyzed statutory provisions under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, particularly Sections 227, 346, and 361, which govern cognizance, adjournment, and transfer of cases. It reiterated the Supreme Court's established principle that cognizance requires judicial notice of an offence with a view to initiating proceedings, which is a condition precedent to valid remand and detention. The Court also examined relevant precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in State through CBI v. Jitender Kumar Singh (2014), which clarified the jurisdiction of Special Judges under the PC Act, and Kallu Nat alias Mayank Kumar Nagar v. State of U.P. (2025), which elucidated the meaning of cognizance in criminal proceedings.
Finding the detention unlawful, the Bombay High Court ordered the immediate release of the petitioners on bail, subject to conditions including surrender of passports, regular reporting to the investigating agency, prohibition on tampering with evidence, restrictions on leaving Maharashtra without court permission, and cooperation with the trial process. The Court also explicitly permitted the investigating agency to rearrest the accused if necessary, provided that all due legal procedures are followed.
This judgment underscores the critical importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards in criminal law, particularly the necessity of formal cognizance and valid remand orders before detaining accused persons. It also highlights jurisdictional nuances in cases involving multiple statutes and special courts, ensuring that accused persons' rights are protected even in serious offences involving cyber fraud and corruption.
Bottom Line:
Illegal detention - After filing of charge-sheet before Special Judge under Prevention of Corruption Act, where no offence under PC Act was ultimately charge-sheeted, Special Judge had no jurisdiction to take cognizance - On transfer of case to JMFC, absence of any order taking cognizance and absence of remand warrant/order authorizing continued custody rendered detention illegal - Accused directed to be released on bail, with liberty to investigating agency to rearrest in accordance with law.
Statutory provision(s): Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Sections 3, 4; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Sections 227, 346, 361; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 61(2), 318(2), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 351; Information Technology Act, 2000 Sections 66C, 66D; Telecommunications Act, 2023 Sections 3(1), 42(1)
Shaibaz Kaiser Ateeq Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, (Bombay)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3000143
