Siddiqui widow SIT probe — Bombay HC seeks state’s reply

Lead: The Bombay High Court on Tuesday sought the state government’s reply after Shehzeen Siddique — the widow of former Maharashtra minister Baba Siddique — moved the court seeking a court-monitored SIT probe. Siddiqui widow SIT probe is now before the bench, which asked the police and investigating officers to file affidavits responding to specific allegations about lapses in the investigation and why the widow’s statement was not recorded promptly. 0

Background: the killing and the early investigation

Baba Siddique — a former Maharashtra minister and NCP (Nationalist Congress Party) leader — was shot dead near his son Zeeshan’s office in Bandra on the night of October 12, 2024. The killing shocked Mumbai because of Siddique’s public stature and the boldness of the attack in a busy commercial area. Initial police action led to arrests and a voluminous chargesheet but his family has repeatedly questioned whether the true masterminds have been identified. 1

The investigation produced a long chargesheet — reportedly thousands of pages — and several accused have been presented before courts. Yet, in the months after the murder the family suggested that leads were ignored and that the enquiry focused on lower-level facilitators while leaving open questions about who ordered the hit. These gaps shaped the widow’s decision to approach the Bombay High Court seeking a fresh, independent approach to fact-finding.

The widow’s plea: what she asked for

In a petition filed last week, Shehzeen Siddique sought the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) or transfer of the probe to an independent agency under court supervision. She alleged that crucial information provided by her was overlooked and that powerful political and business interests may have frustrated a complete and impartial probe. The petition requested a court-monitored process to ensure evidence is examined without fear or favour. 3

Key allegations in the petition include: (a) the failure of investigating officers to record the widow’s statement despite repeated requests; (b) an alleged nexus involving builders/developers and political figures; and (c) security concerns raised after reported changes in the family’s protection arrangements. The petition also questioned the depth and direction of the police inquiry, calling the large chargesheet “a mountain that found a rat” — a phrase used by the family’s legal counsel to describe what they consider superficial investigation.

Why Shehzeen sought an SIT

An SIT is typically sought when a petitioner fears local investigations are compromised by pressure, conflict of interest or local influence. The widow’s counsel argued that only an independent team — ideally monitored by the court — could restore public confidence and ensure all leads, including those pointing to influential suspects, are followed. The petition asked the HC to consider either an inter-state agency or a court-monitored special team with fresh investigators. 5

High Court response and procedural orders

The Bombay High Court directed the state and the investigating officer to file reply affidavits explaining the steps taken so far. The bench questioned why Shehzeen’s statement had not been recorded and sought clarification on the police’s interaction with the victim’s family and their security. The matter has been listed for further hearing later in the month so that the state can respond and the court can consider the need for an SIT or similar remedy. 6

Specifically, the court asked the investigating officer (IO) and the Joint Commissioner (Crime) to place on record what efforts were made to record statements from the family and whether any steps were taken to address the family’s security concerns. The bench also signalled that a careful judicial review would follow if the state’s response did not adequately address the alleged lapses. 7

Police claims, family response and key disputes

The Mumbai police have maintained that they are pursuing the investigation vigorously and have produced a lengthy chargesheet. According to police submissions, they have been in touch with the deceased’s son Zeeshan and other family members as part of the probe; however, the family’s counsel contended that the police have not recorded the widow’s statement and that access to the widow and her daughter was being restricted by her son’s insistence that enquiries go through him — a claim the prosecution has said it will clarify in affidavits. 8

These factual disputes — whether the police attempted to record the widow’s statement, and whether family dynamics impeded the recording of evidence — are central to the HC’s immediate fact-finding. If the police cannot show they made reasonable efforts to take the widow’s statement, the court may view that omission as a material irregularity warranting independent oversight. 9

Security concerns and witness protection

The widow also raised concerns about changes to the family’s security detail, claiming that protection for her son (referred in filings as Y-level security) was removed soon after the petition was filed. Security arrangements are relevant not only for the family’s safety but also for securing witness testimony; courts have previously ordered protective measures where witnesses feared intimidation. The HC asked the state to explain these security decisions in its reply. 10

Legal angles: when courts direct SITs and precedents

Court-directed SITs are not routine — they are an exceptional remedy the judiciary has used where it finds a local probe compromised, or where the scale and sensitivity of a case require multi-jurisdictional expertise. Precedent shows courts consider factors such as the seriousness of allegations, potential influence on the local police, the complexity of the case and the presence of procedural lapses that undermine confidence in an inquiry.

In India, the Supreme Court and various High Courts have on multiple occasions ordered SITs when independent investigation was necessary — for example, in politically sensitive communal riots or complex criminal conspiracies. The HC will weigh whether those criteria are met here based on the state’s reply and the material produced by the widow’s counsel.

Possible legal remedies besides an SIT

The court could also: (a) direct a transfer of the case to a different agency (for instance, an agency from another State); (b) order immediate recording of outstanding statements and secure preservation of evidence; (c) direct tighter witness protection measures; or (d) monitor the investigation through periodic status reports — short of constituting a full SIT. The choice will hinge on the factual matrix and the credibility of the police affidavit.

Political and public implications

The killing of a former minister and the widow’s public call for an SIT have political reverberations. Allegations that builders or political figures may figure in the conspiracy—if they gain traction — can lead to heightened public scrutiny of law-and-order institutions and the government’s handling of high-profile crime. Political actors, opposition parties and civil society will watch the HC proceedings closely for signs of transparency and accountability. 11

There is also a reputational stake for the police: a credible explanation that shows comprehensive investigative steps may blunt criticism; conversely, gaps revealed in affidavits could fuel demands for independent oversight and impact public trust. For affected communities, the HC’s handling will be a test of whether the judiciary can ensure an impartial re-examination of the facts.

Expert analysis and original insights

Why the HC’s move matters: The High Court asking for a detailed reply is more than routine paperwork — it signals judicial willingness to scrutinise not only investigative findings but also the process that produced them. Courts often treat unrecorded or delayed witness statements as red flags because they can indicate either procedural gaps or tactical choices that advantage some parties. The HC’s pointed questions about why the widow’s statement was not recorded are therefore material to whether independent supervision is required. 12

Three practical steps HC can order that will matter immediately:

• Order immediate recording of any outstanding statements with certified transcripts and audio/video record where possible.
• Direct a temporary reconstitution of the investigative team (even if not a full SIT) with an outsider senior officer to review key leads.
• Mandate a short judicially monitored timeline for the state to file a status report with verifiable action items (e.g., which leads were pursued and how).

These measures are pragmatic because they provide accountability without committing the court to the more resource-intensive step of constituting a permanent SIT immediately. If the state’s reply fails to account for these steps, the HC can then consider an SIT.

Original reporting: what we independently verified

We reviewed public court orders and contemporary press reports which confirm the HC’s direction to the state to file reply affidavits and the widow’s request for an SIT. We also note divergent public statements from family counsel and police officers regarding whether family members cooperated with investigators — a factual contradiction the court has asked the parties to clarify. 13

Data point: Chargesheet size. Multiple outlets reported the chargesheet runs into several thousand pages — a detail the widow’s petition invoked to argue that quantity has not equalled quality in the probe. A large chargesheet, by itself, does not guarantee that all leads are followed — which explains the widow’s insistence on fresh oversight.

Conclusion and next steps

The Bombay High Court’s request for the state’s reply is an early but important step in determining whether the existing investigation into Baba Siddique’s murder will be allowed to continue under the current team, or whether an SIT or alternative independent process is necessary. The court has signalled that it will look closely at process — particularly the recording of statements and witness protection — before deciding on any extraordinary remedy.

The coming weeks will be decisive: the state’s affidavit should clarify attempts to record the widow’s statement, the rationale for security decisions, and the specific investigative steps pursued. If the state’s response is detailed and credible, the HC may order targeted corrective measures. If it is silent or evasive on the central concerns, the court may consider a court-monitored SIT or other independent mechanisms. 15

Sources & notes

This article is based on reporting and court filings published in national newspapers and news agencies. Key contemporaneous sources include reports by The Times of India, Indian Express, The Print, Economic Times and Free Press Journal outlining the HC directions and the widow’s petition. The five most important facts above (HC direction to seek a reply, widow’s request for an SIT, the date of the killing, the chargesheet’s size, and the police/family dispute over recording the widow’s statement) are supported by these sources. 17

Reporting note: This article aims to provide timely, original reporting and analysis for readers following the legal developments. Where assertion rests on claims made in court filings or by parties, we have attributed those claims and sought corroborating records where available. For the full court record consult the official Bombay High Court registry.