Mabia Khatoon v. State Of NCT Of Delhi
$~2 *
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MABIA KHATOON .....Petitioner Through:
Ms. Vrinda Bhandari, Advocate (DHCLSC) versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through:
Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP for State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
O R D E R
% 17.04.2026 1.
By way of this application, the applicant seeks grant of regular bail in connection with FIR No. 365/2022 dated 07.12.2022, registered at Police Station Special Cell for offences punishable under Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ["IPC"]. 2.
I have heard Ms. Vrinda Bhandari, learned counsel for the applicant, and Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Mr. Chauhan has also handed up a status report in Court, which is taken on record.
3.
The case of the prosecution, as it emerges from the status report, is that on the basis of secret information regarding the involvement of one Munish Ahmed in the circulation of fake Indian currency, a trap was laid on 07.12.2022 near Anand Vihar Railway Station. It is stated that Munish Ahmed was apprehended from the spot after he allegedly received a The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
bundle of fake Indian currency notes worth Rs. 1,00,000/- from a woman, who was subsequently identified as the present applicant. Upon search of the applicant's bag, further counterfeit currency notes amounting to Rs. 97,500/- were recovered. The applicant was subsequently arrested on 07.12.2022.
4.
The prosecution further alleges that, during interrogation, both the applicant and co-accused Munish Ahmed confessed to their involvement in the offence relating to circulation of fake currency notes. It is further alleged that the counterfeit notes in question were supplied by one Waseem @ Chotu, and that the applicant was tasked with delivering them to Munish Ahmed. Waseem @ Chotu is stated to be the kingpin of the network involved in the manufacturing and supply of counterfeit currency through his associates in different parts of the country. The role attributed to the present applicant is that of facilitating the circulation and distribution of the said counterfeit notes. The recovered currency notes were seized from the accused and sent to the Currency Note Press, Nashik, where they were found to be counterfeit. 5.
Ms. Bhandari submits that the present case involves only police witnesses, and that the applicant has already been in custody for a period exceeding 3 years and 5 months. She further submits that, at best, the role attributed to the applicant would fall within the ambit of Section 489C of the IPC, which is punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years, whereas the offence under Section 489B of the IPC, which is punishable with imprisonment for life, is not made out against her. 6.
Mr. Chauhan, on the other hand, submits that the present case pertains to an economic offence which has the potential to undermine the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
economic stability of the national currency. He further submits that, on this ground, the bail application of the co-accused Munish Ahmed was earlier rejected by this Court vide order dated 24.07.2024 passed in BAIL APPLN. 2561/2024 on merits. He additionally submits that the trial is at an advanced stage, with the examination of the last witness currently underway.
7.
In rejoinder, Ms. Bhandari submits that the role attributed to Munish Ahmed is distinguishable from that of the present applicant, inasmuch as he is alleged to be the recipient of the fake currency notes and to have been actively involved in their circulation, whereas the allegation against the present applicant is limited to her acting as a conduit, tasked with transporting the notes from Waseem @ Chotu to Munish Ahmed.
8.
Insofar as the stage of the proceedings is concerned, she submits that even in the order dated 11.11.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Court, by which the applicant's earlier bail application was rejected, it was recorded that only one witness remained to be examined. She submits that despite the lapse of approximately one and a half years thereafter, the said witness continues to remain under examination and the trial has not progressed materially on this aspect. 9.
She further submits that the applicant has filed an application [IA No. 4/2026] seeking recall of three prosecution witnesses, namely PW-2, PW-3 and PW-8, which is still pending consideration. In this context, Ms. Bhandari has handed over a copy of the order dated 19.02.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Court, which is taken on record. She adds that even on the said date, the concerned prosecution witness was not present for The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
examination.
10.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that it would be appropriate to enlarge the applicant on bail in the present case. While the offence alleged against her is undoubtedly serious, the role attributed to her in the charge sheet as well as in the status report is stated to be confined to acting as a conduit for the transmission of counterfeit currency notes from Waseem @ Chotu to Munish Ahmed. Her role is, therefore, clearly distinguishable from that of Munish Ahmed, whose bail application has already been rejected by this Court. 11.
Further, it is noted that Munish Ahmed was found to be involved in several prior cases under the same sections, whereas the status report does not advert to any criminal antecedents insofar as the applicant is concerned. The applicant's assertion that she has clean antecedents thus remains uncontroverted.
12.
As regards the stage of the trial, Ms. Bhandari is correct in submitting that even in the order dated 11.11.2024, it was recorded that only one prosecution witness remained to be examined. The same position appears to have continued thereafter as well, as reflected in the order dated 19.02.2026, on which date the said witness was not even present for examination.
In these circumstances, the continued deprivation of the applicant's liberty, particularly when she has already remained in custody for over three and a half years, does not appear to be justified.
13.
Having regard to the above, it is directed that the applicant be released on regular bail in connection with FIR No. 365/2022 dated 07.12.2022, registered at Police Station Special Cell for offences The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
punishable under Sections 489B and 489C of IPC, subject to furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- alongwith one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, and subject to the following conditions:
a) The applicant shall not leave the National Capital Territory of Delhi without prior permission of the learned Trial Court; b) The applicant shall disclose her permanent address to the learned Trial Court, as well as the address at which she is residing during the pendency of the case. The applicant shall further intimate the Investigating Officer and file an affidavit before the learned Trial Court regarding any change in residential address; c) The applicant shall furnish her mobile number to the concerned Investigating Officer/Station House Officer, which shall remain active and operational at all times. The said mobile number shall not be switched off or changed without prior intimation to the IO during the pendency of the trial;
d) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, nor shall she tamper with the evidence in any manner whatsoever;
e) The applicant shall remain present before the learned Trial Court on each and every date of hearing;
f) The applicant shall not commit any offence during the period of her release.
14.
The bail application is accordingly disposed of in terms of the above directions.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
15.
It is clarified that any observations made in the present order are solely for the purpose of deciding the present bail application, and shall neither influence the trial proceedings, nor be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
16.
Copy of the order be communicated to the concerned Jail Superintendent electronically for information and necessary compliance. PRATEEK JALAN, J APRIL 17, 2026 'pv'/SD/ The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.