The Delhi High Court has refused to grant bail to Anuradha alias Chiku, who is accused of playing a key financial role in an alleged family-run drug syndicate. The Court upheld the application of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), noting that the strict conditions for bail under the special law were not met.
Justice Sanjeev Narula delivered the judgment on January 6, 2026, dismissing Anuradha’s appeal against a trial court order that had earlier denied her bail.
Background of the Case
The case stems from a police raid conducted in March 2025 in Delhi’s Sultanpuri area. Acting on secret information, police claimed to have uncovered an organised narcotics operation allegedly run by Amit, his mother Kusum, and other family members.
During the raid, officers recovered heroin and tramadol from the premises linked to the family. The police also pointed to CCTV surveillance, restricted access lanes, and controlled movement around the house as indicators of a well-planned illegal operation.
Anuradha, Amit’s sister, was later accused of managing the money generated from drug sales. Investigators claimed large sums of cash moved through her bank accounts over several years, with no clear legal source.
Why MCOCA Was Invoked
Initially, the case proceeded under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. However, based on the family’s alleged criminal history and multiple past drug cases linked to Kusum, authorities later invoked MCOCA.
The prosecution argued that the law targets the organised crime syndicate as a whole, not just individual acts. According to the State, several earlier charge sheets against members of the same group were enough to satisfy the requirement of “continuing unlawful activity” under MCOCA.
Read also:- Tripura High Court Shields Genuine Buyers from GST Double Burden, Reads Down Input Tax Credit Rule
Arguments by the Defence
Challenging the bail rejection, Anuradha’s counsel raised several objections:
- She had no prior criminal convictions.
- Earlier cases did not explicitly describe the offences as part of an “organised crime syndicate.”
- The money deposited in her accounts, she claimed, came from online gaming activities.
- The case against her relied heavily on statements of co-accused, which the defence argued were unreliable.
The defence also pointed out that her brother Amit had already been granted bail, arguing that she deserved similar treatment.
Court’s Observations
The High Court was not persuaded. Justice Narula observed that bail under MCOCA is governed by much stricter standards than ordinary criminal law.
“The Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty, and that she is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail,” the bench noted.
The Court highlighted several factors weighing against Anuradha:
- Statements from protected witnesses alleging that she routed drug money through bank transfers.
- Financial records showing repeated cash deposits without a clear lawful explanation.
- Confessional statements recorded under MCOCA provisions.
- The prosecution’s concern that her release could influence witnesses or disrupt the investigation.
On the issue of parity, the Court clarified that Amit’s bail was granted before MCOCA was applied, making his case materially different.
Read also:- Supreme Court Quashes Post-Retirement Enquiry, Orders Full Retiral Benefits for Former MSWC Officer
The Decision
After reviewing the record, the High Court concluded that Anuradha failed to meet the twin conditions required for bail under MCOCA.
“The material on record does not permit this Court to form a belief that the appellant is not guilty,” the bench held, adding that concerns over witness intimidation could not be ignored at this stage.
The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court’s order refusing bail was upheld. The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail stage and should not influence the final outcome of the trial.
Case Title:- Anuradha @ Chiku vs State (NCT of Delhi)
Case Number: CRL.A. 1543/2025 with CRL.M.A. 32856/2025
