In a ruling delivered on September 28, 2026, the Delhi High Court refused to grant regular bail to a doctor accused of cheating a Kuwait-based company in a surgical mask export deal. The case, BAIL APPLN. 404/2026, arose from an FIR registered at Police Station Rajinder Nagar under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), which deals with cheating. Justice Madhu Jain dismissed the bail application, holding that the applicant’s conduct—taking an advance but neither supplying the goods nor returning the money—along with three other pending FIRs, made him ineligible for relief.
The judgment matters because it tests the limits of bail in economic offences, especially when the accused claims a government ban prevented performance. It also reinforces that merely depositing money or citing pending cases as a neutral factor does not guarantee bail if the court sees a pattern of deceit.
Background: Mask Export Deal and Government Ban
According to the order, the applicant’s company entered into an agreement on March 4, 2020, with a Kuwait company through the complainant to supply surgical face masks. The applicant’s counsel argued that a government notification dated March 19, 2020, banned the export of surgical masks, making it impossible to fulfil the contract. She also claimed the company had already procured about 3,80,000 masks—one-third of the order—and paid GST, but could not export due to the ban. There was no dishonest intention from the start, she said.
The applicant is a doctor working as a Senior Medical Officer at Max Hospital. He had earlier deposited ₹50,00,000 with the court registry and complied with all conditions, his counsel added. The defence also argued that the complainant was only a broker or facilitator with no locus standi (legal standing) because the Kuwait company itself was not in the picture.
Complainant’s Stand: No Raw Material, Only GST Invoice
The complainant’s counsel countered that the complainant is the Liaison Officer of the Kuwait company and thus authorised to pursue the case. He alleged that the applicant never intended to export masks because no raw material was purchased. The invoice on record, he argued, was a GST invoice raised on the Kuwait company, not proof of purchase. He further claimed that three other FIRs exist against the applicant based on the same modus operandi (method of operation), and that documents with the same Aadhaar number but different addresses were recovered during investigation.
The State’s Additional Public Prosecutor supported these claims, adding that the money received from the Kuwait company was transferred to different accounts and that 12 companies are associated with the applicant. The prosecution also pointed to the similar pattern in the other three FIRs.
Court’s Reasoning: Conduct and Pattern Matter
Justice Jain first addressed the locus standi objection. She noted that the complainant had clearly stated he is the authorised representative of the Kuwait company, so he had the right to file and pursue the 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.”
The Court then examined the invoice. It concluded that the invoice was raised on the Kuwait company regarding GST payment, which showed the applicant had the intention to cheat from the inception because he had never purchased any raw material to supply. The Court rejected the argument that the government ban excused non-performance, noting that the applicant had taken an advance but neither supplied the material nor returned the money.
The Court also considered that mediation between the parties had failed, and three other cases were pending against the applicant. It held that every case must be judged on its own facts, and here the conduct tipped the scales against bail.
Accordingly, the bail application was dismissed. Pending applications were also disposed of.
What This Means for Property and Business Disputes
While this case involves cheating under the BNS, it carries lessons for property and real estate disputes. Courts increasingly look at the conduct of the accused—whether they took money without delivering and whether they have a history of similar behaviour. The ruling also shows that depositing a large sum does not automatically entitle an accused to bail if the court believes the money itself came from the alleged fraud.
For ordinary people, the takeaway is simple: if you take an advance for goods or services and fail to deliver, the court may see it as cheating from the start. The pandemic-era mask ban did not sway the Court because the applicant could not show he had actually bought the raw material. That evidentiary gap proved fatal.
The case is a reminder that in economic offences, bail is not a matter of right. The Court weighs the seriousness of the allegation, the conduct of the accused, and the possibility of similar offences being repeated. Here, all three factors went against the applicant.