You should lead a very decent life at this age,” Justice Mishra observed.
You have a history,” Justice Mishra remarked.
“You have lost the credibility of being a lady… You are no longer a lady, you are a Lady Don,” Justice Mishra observed.
“The State machinery is such that if I go inside in one case, I can be easily planted in another case,” counsel submitted.
The petitioner argued that the High Court had mechanically relied on her previous criminal record while ignoring settled law that criminal antecedents alone cannot be a ground to deny bail.
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to grant bail to a 60-year-old woman accused in a narcotics case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, with Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra remarking during the hearing that she had “lost the credibility of being a lady” due to her repeated involvement in similar offences.
The Bench of Justice Mishra and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar was hearing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging a March 26, 2026 order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had rejected the woman’s fourth bail application in connection with Crime No. 186/2025 registered at Dhanpuri Police Station in Shahdol district under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act.
At the outset, the Bench questioned the petitioner’s conduct. “Why are you doing all this? You should lead a very decent life at this age,” Justice Mishra observed.
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate C Ankeeta Appanna argued that the trial was moving at a slow pace and only two witnesses had been examined over the past year despite the prosecution citing 14 witnesses.
The Court, however, pointed to the petitioner’s criminal history. “You are not a first-time offender. You have a history,” Justice Mishra remarked.
When the counsel highlighted the petitioner’s age and medical conditions, including diabetes and hypertension, the Court remained unconvinced.
“You have lost the credibility of being a lady… You are no longer a lady, you are a Lady Don,” Justice Mishra observed.
Counsel responded by arguing that repeated criminal cases could not automatically justify continued incarceration and suggested that a person already facing criminal proceedings could easily be implicated in fresh cases. “The State machinery is such that if I go inside in one case, I can be easily planted in another case,” counsel submitted.
The Bench ultimately declined to grant relief and dismissed the petition.
According to the plea, the petitioner has been in custody since May 28, 2025. She challenged the High Court’s refusal to grant bail, contending that the alleged contraband recovered from her was below the commercial quantity threshold, making the stringent restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act inapplicable.
The petitioner argued that the High Court had mechanically relied on her previous criminal record while ignoring settled law that criminal antecedents alone cannot be a ground to deny bail. Reliance was placed on judgments including Puranmal Jat v. State of Rajasthan and Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of Uttar Pradesh.
The plea filed though AoR Ashutosh Dubey also pointed out that the charge sheet had already been filed, no custodial interrogation was required, and the trial was likely to take considerable time to conclude. It was further submitted that the petitioner was suffering from chronic ailments and required regular medication.
The prosecution case stems from allegations that the petitioner was involved in the sale of narcotic substances. According to a memorandum statement recorded by the police, she allegedly admitted to having sold narcotics in the past and resumed such activities several months before her arrest. The defence, however, argued that the statement was self-contradictory and inherently unreliable.
Notwithstanding these submissions, the Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the High Court’s order and declined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, effectively bringing her fourth attempt for regular bail to an end.
