Recently, the Delhi High Court heard an appeal challenging the rejection of a bail application in a case concerning alleged organised narcotics trafficking. The appeal was filed under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA) against an order passed by the Special Court refusing regular bail.
Brief Facts:
The case arose from secret information received by the police regarding a family-run narcotics operation in the Sultanpuri–Mangolpuri area of Delhi. Acting on the tip-off, a raid was conducted at the premises linked to the accused persons, resulting in the recovery of heroin and tramadol. Consequently, an FIR was registered under Sections 21, 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, along with Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
During the investigation, the prosecution alleged that the appellant, along with her family members, was part of an organised crime syndicate engaged in drug trafficking and handling of proceeds of crime. On the basis of previous criminal cases attributed to the syndicate, approval was granted for the invocation of Sections 3 and 4 of MCOCA. The appellant’s application for regular bail was dismissed by the Special Court, leading to the present appeal.
Contentions of the Appellant:
Counsel for the Appellant argued that the invocation of MCOCA was legally unsustainable as the essential requirement of “continuing unlawful activity” under Section 2(1)(d) of MCOCA was not satisfied. The Appellant submitted that none of the earlier charge-sheets relied upon by the prosecution alleged the existence of an organised crime syndicate or attributed any specific role to the appellant. The counsel further contended that the case against the appellant was primarily based on disclosure statements of the co-accused, which are inadmissible in view of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu. The Appellant also sought parity with a co-accused who had already been granted bail and argued that, since the recovered contraband was ultimately treated as less than a commercial quantity, the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act did not apply.
Contentions of the State:
The State submitted that bail under MCOCA is governed by the stringent twin conditions under Section 21(4) and that the Appellant had failed to satisfy either requirement. It was argued that the condition of multiple charge-sheets applies to the organised crime syndicate as a whole and not to each individual member. The prosecution further relied on protected witness statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC (now Section 183 BNSS), alleged financial trails showing unexplained cash deposits, and confessional statements recorded under Section 18 of MCOCA to assert the appellant’s role in handling proceeds of crime. The State also expressed apprehension that the appellant’s release on bail could lead to witness intimidation and tampering with evidence.
Observation of the Court:
The Court observed that bail under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 is subject to a markedly stringent standard. Emphasising the rigour of Section 21(4) of MCOCA, the Court noted that the provision imposes “twin conditions” which are qualitatively different from ordinary bail considerations. The Court recorded that “the material on record must disclose reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence alleged, and that the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail”, and held that this threshold had not been crossed in the present case.
Addressing the challenge to the invocation of MCOCA, the Court rejected the contention that the absence of the appellant’s name in earlier charge-sheets or lack of personal antecedents was fatal. Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Zakir Abdul Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, the Court reiterated that “the statutory requirement of more than one charge-sheet within the preceding ten years attaches to the organised crime syndicate and not to each individual member”. The Court further observed that an approval under the Act “need not name every accused person at the outset, as individual roles may surface during investigation”.
The Court also declined to accept the argument that the prosecution case rested solely on inadmissible disclosure statements. Distinguishing the reliance placed on Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Court observed that the present case was not founded merely on confessions recorded under the NDPS Act. It noted that “the prosecution relies on protected witness statements recorded before a court and confessional statements under Section 18 of MCOCA, which stand on a distinct statutory footing”, and clarified that the evidentiary value of such material would be tested at trial, not at the bail stage.
On the merits of bail, the Court held that the material on record, including alleged financial trails, protected witness accounts, and confessional statements under the special statute formed a prima facie narrative linking the appellant to the organised crime syndicate. The Court cautioned that “at the stage of bail, the court cannot conduct a mini-trial” and concluded that it was not possible to record satisfaction that the appellant was “not guilty” or “unlikely to commit any offence while on bail”, as required under Section 21(4) of MCOCA.
The decision of the Court:
The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the rejection of bail. It held that the twin conditions under Section 21(4) of MCOCA were not satisfied and that the apprehension of witness influence could not be ruled out at this stage.
Case Title: Anuradha @ Chiku v. State (Nct Of Delhi)
Case No.: CRL.A. 1543/2025
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Narula
Counsel for the Appellant: Adv. Kundan Kumar, Adv. Madan Kumar Jha, Adv. Pranshu Kumar and Adv. Mahima Choudhary
Counsel for the State: APP Aman Usman for the State.
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
