T Ranjith vs. State (Nct Of Delhi)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, a Senior Medical Officer, is seeking regular bail in FIR No. 88/2025 for an offence under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner's company had an agreement on 04.03.2020 to supply surgical face masks to a Kuwaiti company through the complainant. However, a Government Notification on 19.03.2020 banned the export of surgical masks, preventing the petitioner from fulfilling the order. The petitioner claims no dishonest intention and states that approximately one-third of the masks were procured, with GST paid. The petitioner has deposited Rs. 50,00,000/- with the Registry. The complainant is stated to be a facilitator, and the actual buyer company is not involved in the complaint.
Held
The Court held that the complainant, as the authorized representative of the Kuwaiti Company, possesses the locus standi to file and pursue the complaint. While acknowledging the principle that the pendency of other criminal cases alone is not a ground for refusing bail, the Court emphasized that the conduct of the applicant cannot be ignored, especially when alleged to have misused liberty granted in prior cases. The Court found that the invoice raised by the petitioner upon the Kuwaiti Company regarding GST payment, rather than an invoice for purchased goods, indicated a clear intention to cheat from the inception. Considering the petitioner's conduct in taking advance payment without supplying material or returning money, the pendency of three other cases, and the failure of mediation, the Court was not inclined to grant regular bail.
Key Issues
1. Whether the complainant, as a facilitator/broker, has the locus standi to file the present complaint, considering the alleged agreement was with a Kuwaiti company and not the complainant directly? 2. Whether the petitioner's inability to export surgical masks due to a government ban negates any dishonest intention, thereby warranting bail? 3. Whether the pendency of three other FIRs with a similar modus operandi, coupled with alleged misuse of liberty in those cases, justifies the refusal of bail? Petitioner's arguments: The complainant lacks locus standi as they were merely a facilitator. The inability to export was due to an unforeseen government ban, not dishonest intent. The petitioner has fulfilled court-imposed conditions, including a deposit. Reliance is placed on Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P. & Anr., 2020 SCC OnLine SC 75, for the proposition that pendency of other cases is not a sole ground for refusing bail. Respondent's (Complainant and State) arguments: The complainant is the authorized representative of the Kuwaiti company and thus has locus standi. The petitioner never intended to export as no raw material was purchased, and the invoice raised was for GST payment, indicating an intention to cheat from the inception. The petitioner has a similar modus operandi in three other FIRs, and documents with different addresses under the same Aadhaar number were recovered. The amount received was transferred into different accounts, and 12 companies are associated with the petitioner.
Sections Cited
Section 318(4), Section 483
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R % 28.09.2026
This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
The present application has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNSS’), seeking grant of regular bail in FIR No. 88/2025, registered at Police Station Rajinder Nagar, for the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS’).
Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is a Doctor by profession and at present is working as a Senior Medical Officer in Max Hospital. She submits that his Company entered into an Agreement with the Kuwait Company through the complainant on 04.03.2020 to supply the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/09/2026 at 11:03:43
surgical face masks, but subsequently, due to a Government Notification dated 19.03.2020, the export of surgical masks was banned and therefore, he was not able to export the same. It is submitted that there was no dishonest intention from the inception.
Learned counsel for the Applicant further submits that there is one more invoice on record which shows that the Company of the Applicant had already procured about 3,80,000 masks, i.e., almost one-third of the quantity, for which GST had also been paid, but due to the sudden notification by the Government, he could not export the same. She further submits that the Applicant has also fulfilled all the conditions imposed by this Court and has deposited a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- with the Registry and therefore, prays that he be released on regular bail.
Learned counsel for the Applicant further submits that the complainant is only a facilitator of the deal. The Company to which the Applicant was supposed to export the masks is nowhere in the picture. The complaint is not by them and the complainant was only a broker/facilitator of the deal and, therefore, has no locus standi.
Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant submits that the complainant is the Liaison Officer of the Kuwait Company and right from the beginning, the Applicant had no intention to export the masks as no raw material had been purchased.
Learned counsel for the Complainant submits that this is the GST invoice raised on the Kuwait Company and not the invoice showing that the Applicant has already purchased the goods.
He further submits that there are three more FIRs based on the same modus operandi wherein the Applicant had cheated other persons. He further This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/09/2026 at 11:03:43
submits that the Applicant and his father are Directors of the Company and that documents pertaining to the same Aadhaar number bearing different addresses were recovered during investigation.
Learned APP for the State also submits that the amount received from the Kuwait Company was transferred into different accounts by the Applicant and that 12 different companies are stated to be associated with the Applicant. He further submits that the Applicant has adopted a similar modus operandi in the other three FIRs registered against him.
By way of rejoinder, learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is on bail in all the three cases and that the said cases arise out of different facts. She also places reliance upon Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P. & Anr., 2020 SCC OnLine SC 75, to submit that mere pendency of other criminal cases cannot, by itself, be a ground for refusal of bail.
The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the Complainant has clearly stated that the complainant is the authorised representative of the Kuwait Company. Therefore, he has locus standi to file and pursue the present complaint.
There can be no quarrel with the proposition that pendency of other criminal cases cannot, by itself, be a ground for refusal of bail. However, the conduct of the Applicant cannot be ignored by the Court, particularly when, despite having been released on bail in those cases, he is alleged to have misused the liberty granted to him and committed another offence.
Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant had already purchased about one-third of the face masks and was ready to export the same, but due to the ban imposed by the Government of India, he could not export the same. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/09/2026 at 11:03:43
However, a perusal of this invoice shows that the Applicant has raised the invoice upon the Kuwait Company regarding the GST payment. Thus, it is clear that the Applicant had the intention to cheat the complainant from the inception, as he had never purchased any raw material to supply to the respondent Company.
Every case has to be judged on its own facts and circumstances. In the present case, considering the conduct of the Applicant in having taken the advance amount but neither supplying the material nor returning the money, the pendency of three other cases against him, and the fact that the mediation between the parties has also failed, this Court is not inclined to release the Applicant on regular bail.
Accordingly, the present application is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 28, 2026/b/m This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/09/2026 at 11:03:43
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.