JUDGMENT

SANJEEV NARULA, J.:

1. This appeal under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999, (“MCOCA”) assails order dated 31st October, 2025 passed by the ASJ 03 (North-West) Rohini Courts, rejecting the Appellant’s bail application and seeks her release on bail.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows.

2.1. On 10th March, 2025, police received secret information that one Amit, son of Surender, resident of Sultanpuri, Delhi, aged about 25-27 years, along with his mother Kusum, had set up an organised operation for trafficking narcotic substances in and around Sultanpuri and Mangolpuri. It was further conveyed that multiple CCTV cameras had been installed around his house and the adjoining narrow alley, with iron gates placed at both ends of the alley, in order to obstruct law enforcement. The information also suggested that Amit would be travelling around 4:30 PM-5:30 PM in a black Mahindra Scorpio bearing Registration No. DL 8CBA 4642 from Mangolpuri Flyover towards his house and if intercepted, could be apprehended with contraband. Acting on this information, a raid was conducted at the house, which resulted in recovery of 385.53 grams (gross weight of packed material, in multiple small plastic packets) heroin, and 47.09 grams of tramadol. Based on this, FIR No. 186/2025 dated 11th March, 2025 was registered at P.S. Sultanpuri under Sections 21(c), 22(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (“NDPS Act”) and Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023., (“BNS”)

2.2. Prosecution alleges that during police custody remand, co-accused Amit disclosed that he, along with his mother Kusum and his sisters Deepa and Anuradha (the Appellant), ran a drug syndicate and facilitated trafficking as well as concealment of narcotic substances. It was further alleged that Kusum, Deepa and the Appellant were beneficiaries of the proceeds received from the syndicate. The prosecution also claims recovery of cash and jewellery from a locker/residential premises at the instance of co-accused Amit.

2.3. During police custody remand, the prosecution effected recoveries and seizures from multiple premises stated to be associated with Kusum and the family. The seized articles are described as comprising cash and valuables, certain electronic devices and equipment linked to CCTV surveillance, and other items such as a motorcycle and a vehicle key, along with documents pertaining to certain properties. The prosecution case is that these recoveries, including reference to a flat at Rohini, point to accumulation of assets and articles from proceeds of illicit trafficking.

2.4. During investigation, the Scorpio vehicle used by co-accused Amit (Mahindra Scorpio No. DL 8CBA 4642) was seized. The prosecution also points to substantial cash deposits and UPI-linked inflows in the accounts of the Appellant and the co-accused, during 2022 to 2025, said to be disproportionate to any disclosed lawful source and relied upon as indicative of proceeds from illicit trafficking.

2.5. A charge-sheet dated 9th May, 2025 was filed before the NDPS Court against co-accused Amit for offences under the NDPS Act, the BNS and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, with the investigation stated to be continuing in respect of other alleged members of the syndicate.

2.6. At the stage of framing of charge, the Trial Court recorded that the prosecution initially proceeded on the footing of “commercial quantity” of the contraband. However, on re-assessment during proceedings under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, the quantity did not meet the commercial threshold. The Court, therefore, framed charge under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

2.7. Co-accused Amit was granted regular bail by the Trial Court, whereas the Appellant and co-accused Deepa were granted pre-arrest bail. However, subsequently, orders granting pre-arrest bail were set aside by this Court.

2.8. Thereafter, on t