2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 86
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Narula, J
ANURADHA @ CHIKU – Appellant
Versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) – Respondent
CRL.A.-1543/2025
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kundan Kumar, Madan Kumar Jha, Pranshu Kumar, Mahima Choudhary
For the Respondents: Aman Usman
Under MCOCA Section 21(4), bail requires satisfaction that accused is not guilty and unlikely to re-offend; this exacting threshold is not met where prima facie material (financial trail, witness statements, confessions) links accused to organised crime syndicate, even if NDPS quantity is intermediate.
Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA) - Section 2(1)(d) - Continuing unlawful activity - Section 21(4) - Bail - Twin conditions - Requirement of reasonable grounds for belief that accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit offence while on bail - Approval under Section 23(1)(a) need not name every accused - Zakir Abdul Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, (2023) 20 SCC 408 - Section 18 confessions admissible under MCOCA - Further investigation under Section 193(9) BNSS / Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. - Permissibility even after cognisance - Narcoitic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) - Sections 21(b), 21(c), 22(b), 29, 52A - Recovery of heroin and tramadol - Distinction between commercial and intermediate quantity - Section 37 embargo inapplicable when quantity intermediate but MCOCA standard independent - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) - Section 193 - Leave requirement for further investigation during trial - Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1 - Not applicable to MCOCA Section 18 confessions - Parity with co-accused - Not a rule of thumb. (Paras 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 21, 22, 23)rn
(B) Bail under MCOCA - Section 21(4) imposes exacting threshold qualitatively different from general law - Court not to undertake mini-trial but must calibrate scrutiny where foundation rests on alleged role in organised crime syndicate - Financial trail, protected witness statements, and Section 18 confessions collectively can satisfy prima facie narrative to deny satisfaction of twin conditions - Apprehension of witness influence and tampering relevant. (Paras 5, 16, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28)rn
(C) Invocation of MCOCA - Requirement of multiple charge-sheets within preceding ten years attaches to the organised crime syndicate, not to each individual accused - Prior cases need not explicitly use phrase “organised crime syndicate” - Inquiry is whether material prima facie satisfies statutory ingredients - Allegation of mala fides not sufficient at bail stage unless tangible material exists. (Paras 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)rn
(D) Appeal - Scope of appellate interference under Section 12 MCOCA - Limited to perversity or patent illegality - Impugned order not suffering from such infirmity. (Paras 4.1, 28)rn
Facts of the case:
rnThe appellant was arrested under MCOCA for her alleged role in a drug syndicate run by her mother Kusum, with co-accused Amit and others. Recovery of heroin and tramadol from a dwelling house associated with the family was below commercial quantity. Co-accused Amit was granted regular bail under NDPS. The appellant’s pre-arrest bail was set aside. Subsequently, MCOCA was invoked after approval. Charge-sheet under NDPS had been filed; further investigation led to MCOCA case. The trial court rejected bail under MCOCA, leading to this appeal. The prosecution relied on protected witness statements under Section 183 BNSS, Section 18 confessions of co-accused, and financial trail of unexplained deposits in appellant’s bank accounts. The appellant challenged the invocation, citing lack of personal prior involvement, non-application of mind in approval order, and procedural bar under Section 193 BNSS. The state opposed bail citing twin conditions not satisfied and risk of witness influence.rn
Findings of Court:
rnThe court held that the twin conditions under Section 21(4) MCOCA are not satisfied. The material on record - including protected witness statements, Section 18 confessions, and financial evidence of unexplained inflows - prima facie indicates the appellant’s active role as a financial handler in an organised crime syndicate. The challenge to invocation and approval order was not ex facie barred; prior cases against the syndicate supplied the predicate pattern. The procedural objection under Section 193 BNSS did not strike at the root of the case. The plea of parity with co-accused Amit was rejected because his bail was granted before MCOCA was invoked and his role was different. The argument based on Tofan Singh was inapplicable to MCOCA confessions. The appellant’s explanation of “online gaming” was not verified and could be examined at trial. Appeal dismissed.rn
Issues:rnThe main issues were: (i) Whether the invocation of MCOCA against the appellant was maintainable given the lack of personal antecedents and the approval order’s alleged non-application of mind; (ii) Whether further investigation under MCOCA after filing of NDPS charge-sheet required leave under Section 193 BNSS; (iii) Whether the appellant satisfied the twin conditions under Section 21(4) MCOCA for grant of bail; (iv) Whether the plea of parity with co-accused Amit was valid.rn
Ratio Decidendi:rnThe court ruled that (i) the requirement of “continuing unlawful activity” attaches to the organised crime syndicate, not to each member, and prior cases against the syndicate suffice; (ii) further investigation under MCOCA is permissible even after cognisance of NDPS charge-sheet, and procedural objections do not automatically satisfy the stringent bail threshold; (iii) the twin conditions under Section 21(4) MCOCA require the court to be satisfied that the accused is not guilty and unlikely to re-offend - on the prima facie material, the appellant failed to cross this threshold; (iv) parity is not a rule of thumb when roles and governing law differ.rn
Result:rnAppeal dismissed. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated. Observations not to influence trial. (Para 29, 30, 31)
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV NARULA, J.:
1. This appeal under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 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 and Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
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
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
