The Bombay High Court has declared the continued jail custody of two accused in a CBI-investigated fake “Amazon support” call centre case illegal. It has released them on bail because no court had taken cognizance of the case after the charge-sheet and no Magistrate had passed remand orders, even though the offences are serious.
A Special Judge appointed under the PC Act has no jurisdiction to take cognizance where the charge-sheet discloses no PC Act offence and no public servant is charged. A Magistrate to whom the case is transferred must himself take cognizance, with a conscious application of mind to start proceedings, and the accused who is already in custody can be kept in custody after cognizance only under a Magistrate’s warrant of remand under Section 346(2) BNSS. Orders on bail or further investigation do not amount to cognizance. Custody without cognizance and a remand order is without authority and illegal, but the agency may rearrest the accused through the due process of law.
The case concerns a fake call centre allegedly run from a resort in Igatpuri, Nashik, where about 63 operators allegedly phished senior citizens in the US and Canada and took money through gift cards and cryptocurrency. The CBI registered its FIR in August 2025, including Prevention of Corruption Act sections for alleged help by unknown bank officials. The petitioners, Shaibaz Shaikh and Sameer Siroha, were arrested on 9 August 2025 and remanded by the Special Judge for CBI Cases at Pune. However, the November 2025 charge-sheet was not filed under the PC Act and named no public servant. In February 2026, the Special Judge accepted that he had no jurisdiction to take cognizance, and transferred the case to the Magistrate at Igatpuri “for taking cognizance/trial in accordance with law”, while sending the accused to judicial custody. Justices Sarang V. Kotwal and Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale found that the Magistrate never passed any order taking cognizance or issuing process, and simply adjourned the case from time to time. The roznama only noted that the accused were produced by video conferencing and told the next date, with no warrant or direction to the Jail Superintendent to keep them in custody. Relying on the Supreme Court’s Kallu Nat and S.K. Sinha (Videocon) rulings, the court held that cognizance is the first step in a trial and requires an application of mind to start proceedings, and that orders on bail and further investigation do not amount to this. Under Section 346(2) of the BNSS, remand of an accused “if in custody” requires a warrant, and the Gujarat High Court’s Vinodbhai Tiwari ruling cannot be read to dispense with it. The court distinguished Kusum Sahu, since this petition was filed before the bail applications, and raised issues going to the root of the matter. It declared the detention illegal and released both on a Rs 1 lakh bond with conditions, but said that the CBI may rearrest them by due process of law.
Citation: Shaibaz Kaiser Ateeq Shaikh & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Criminal Writ Petition No. 1100 of 2026, Bombay High Court (Justices Sarang V. Kotwal and Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale), decided on 21.10.2026 | 2026:BHC-AS:42728-DB
Leave a Reply