Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula dismissed an accused woman’s appeal for bail, declining to interfere with the rejection of her release in a case where the State alleged, she was part of a family-run organised crime syndicate involved in trafficking narcotic substances. The Court held that the twin conditions under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act were not satisfied on the material before it. It also held that MCOCA may be invoked against a person alleged to be a syndicate member even if she has no prior FIRs or charge-sheets in her individual capacity, since the prior charge-sheets requirement is assessed with reference to the syndicate. Justice Narula observed that it “attaches to the organised crime syndicate and not to each individual alleged to be a member.”

The appeal arose from an order rejecting regular bail to a woman accused under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999, in connection with alleged involvement in an organised drug trafficking syndicate operating in parts of Delhi. The prosecution alleged that the syndicate was run by members of the accused’s family and was engaged in trafficking narcotic substances, with the appellant playing the role of a financial handler. Recoveries of heroin and tramadol were affected from premises associated with the family, along with seizure of cash, valuables, electronic surveillance equipment, and vehicles.

Also Read: Public Sector Enterprise Cannot Initiate Disciplinary Action Against Retired Employee Unless Rules Expressly Enable It; Supreme Court

The prosecution further relied on financial records indicating substantial cash deposits and digital transfers in the appellant’s bank accounts, claimed to be disproportionate to any lawful income. Protected witness statements and confessional statements recorded under the special statute were also relied upon.

The appellant challenged the invocation of MCOCA, disputed the existence of “continuing unlawful activity,” questioned the validity of the approval and further investigation, and sought bail on grounds including parity with a co-accused and inapplicability of the NDPS embargo.

The Court recorded that “bail under MCOCA stands on a distinct footing” and noted that Section 21(4) imposes twin conditions requiring the Court to be satisfied that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail. It observed that “the Supreme Court has consistently treated this threshold as exacting, and qualitatively different from the ordinary discretion that governs bail under the general law.”

On the challenge to invocation of MCOCA, the Court stated that “the objection that the appellant was not named in the initial proposal, coupled with the plea of absence of antecedents, cannot, without more, render the invocation of MCOCA invalid.” Referring to precedent, it recorded that approval under the Act “need not name every accused person at the outset” and that the statutory requirement of multiple charge-sheets “attaches to the organised crime syndicate and not to each individual alleged to be a member.”

Addressing the contention regarding further investigation, the Court observed that “further investigation even after cognisance is within the statutory scheme” and that such objections, by themselves, do not meet the threshold required to grant bail under MCOCA.

While assessing bail merits, the Court noted that “at the stage of considering bail, the Court is not expected to undertake a detailed or exhaustive appraisal of the evidence,” but held that limited scrutiny was necessary. It recorded that recoveries from premises associated with the appellant, unexplained financial inflows, protected witness statements, and confessions recorded under Section 18 of MCOCA constituted material which “does not permit the Court to record the satisfaction mandated by Section 21(4) in the appellant’s favour.”

The Court further stated that “the prosecution’s apprehension of influencing witnesses and tampering cannot be treated as a mere incantation,” particularly in cases involving financial trails and witness-based evidence.

Also Read: NDPS Accused Can’t Be Declared Proclaimed Offender; Only Proclaimed Person Can Be Declared Under Section 82 CrPC: Delhi High Court

The Court held that “the record does not disclose reasonable grounds for believing that the appellant is not guilty of the offences alleged under MCOCA. The apprehension of witness influence and tampering also cannot be discounted at this stage. The twin conditions under Section 21(4) are not satisfied.”

The appeal seeking bail was dismissed. The Court clarified that “any observations made in the present order are for the purpose of deciding the present appeal and should not influence the outcome of the trial.” Pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellant: Mr. Kundan Kumar, Mr. Madan Kumar Jha, Mr. Pranshu Kumar, Ms. Mahima Choudhary, Advocates
For the Respondent: Mr. Aman Usman, Additional Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Anuradha @ Chiku v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Neutral Citation: 2026: DHC:76
Case Number: CRL.A. 1543/2025
Bench: Justice Sanjeev Narula