The Supreme Court denied bail to a 60-year-old woman accused under the NDPS Act, citing repeated alleged involvement in similar offences. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra made strong observations during the hearing regarding her conduct and credibility.
The Supreme Court refused bail to a 60-year-old woman facing allegations under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. During the hearing, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra made remarks about the petitioner’s repeated involvement in comparable offences, stating that she had “lost the credibility of being a lady.”
The Bench comprised Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar and was dealing with a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against an order dated March 26, 2026 passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The High Court had rejected her fourth bail application in connection with Crime No. 186/2025 registered at Dhanpuri Police Station in Shahdol district under Sections 8/20 of the NDPS Act.
At the start of the proceedings, the Bench questioned the petitioner’s conduct.
Justice Mishra observed,
“Why are you doing all this? You should lead a very decent life at this age,”
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate C Ankeeta Appanna submitted that the trial was progressing slowly: over the past year, only two witnesses had been examined, even though the prosecution had cited 14 witnesses. The Court, however, drew attention to the petitioner’s criminal history.
Justice Mishra remarked,
“You are not a first-time offender. You have a history,”
When counsel pressed that the petitioner’s age and health conditions such as diabetes and hypertension should be considered, the Bench was not persuaded.
Justice Mishra observed.
“You have lost the credibility of being a lady… You are no longer a lady, you are a Lady Don,”
Responding, counsel argued that repeated criminal cases should not by themselves justify continued detention, and that a person already facing prosecution could be easily implicated in new cases.
Counsel submitted,
“The State machinery is such that if I go inside in one case, I can be easily planted in another case,”
After considering the submissions, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and declined to grant any relief. The petitioner has been in custody since May 28, 2025. In her plea, she challenged the High Court’s refusal to grant bail, contending that the alleged contraband recovered from her was below the commercial quantity threshold. She argued that therefore the heightened restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not apply.
She further submitted that the High Court had relied in a mechanical manner on her previous criminal record, without properly applying settled principles that criminal antecedents alone cannot be used as the basis to deny bail. In support of her case, she relied on decisions including Puranmal Jat v. State of Rajasthan and Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of Uttar Pradesh.
Her plea, filed through AoR Ashutosh Dubey, also noted that the charge sheet had already been filed, custodial interrogation was not required, and the trial was expected to take significant time to conclude. It was also argued that she suffers from chronic ailments and requires regular medication.
As per the prosecution case, the woman was allegedly involved in the sale of narcotic substances. The prosecution relied on a memorandum statement attributed to the police, in which she allegedly admitted to having sold narcotics earlier and claimed that she resumed such activity several months before her arrest. The defence, however, argued that the statement was self-contradictory and unreliable.
Despite these contentions, the Supreme Court found no ground to interfere with the High Court’s decision and declined to grant her bail, effectively ending her fourth attempt at regular bail.
Case Title: Akiloon Begum v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE