In a ruling balancing judicial propriety with personal liberty, the Supreme Court of India has remitted a bail order to the High Court of Karnataka for fresh consideration after finding that an accused engaged in forum shopping, suppressed material orders, and breached the principle of utmost good faith (uberrima fides). A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu set aside the final disposal of the criminal petition granting regular bail to the accused, converting his status to interim bail pending a fresh decision by the High Court.
The matter arose from a challenge mounted by the Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of Service Tax Intelligence, against the judgment and order dated December 26, 2025, passed by a Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No. 16884 of 2025. By the said order, regular bail was granted during the High Court’s winter vacation to Mohammed Kamran, proprietor of M/s MK Traders.
The appellant had lodged a private complaint against the respondent before the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru, alleging offences under Section 16(2)(b) read with Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), and 132(1)(f) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), punishable under Section 135 thereof. The allegations stated that the respondent issued invoices without supply of goods, availed fraudulent input tax credit, falsified documents and financial statements, and furnished false information to evade tax, causing a loss of Rs. 43,08,22,936. During a search at his declared and actual residential premises, the respondent allegedly offered stiff resistance and fled, leading to a separate FIR. Following his arrest on September 16, 2025, successive bail applications filed before the trial court and the Sessions Court were rejected.
The respondent then moved Criminal Petition No. 16884 of 2025 before the High Court. On December 12, 2025, the High Court directed service upon the Standing Counsel for the appellant and directed the appellant to file its statement of objections within two weeks. Although the High Court’s winter vacation commenced from December 20, 2025, the petition came to be listed on December 26, 2025, pursuant to a memo moved by the respondent’s counsel, whereupon the Single Judge granted bail.
Before the Supreme Court, Additional Solicitor General N. Venkataraman, appearing for the appellant department, contended that the High Court ought not to have heard the petition when an adjournment had been requested due to the absence of the arguing Standing Counsel. He submitted that the panel counsel who appeared had no instructions to contest the matter on merits, leading to a brazen violation of natural justice. It was further revealed that on December 22, 2025, the respondent had filed a writ petition (Writ Petition No. 38771 of 2025) before the High Court under Article 226 challenging his arrest, seeking quashing of the complaint and cognizance order, and requesting ad-interim release on the ground that an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) was not an efficacious remedy. The ASG pointed out that the prayer for ad-interim release was refused by the writ court on December 22, 2025, yet this fact was never disclosed to the Single Judge who granted bail on December 26, 2025.
Controverting these submissions, Senior Counsel S. Nagamuthu, representing the respondent, argued that the panel counsel for the department had addressed the court on merits after initially seeking an adjournment faintly, and that the department had failed to file its statement of objections within the two-week window. On merits, he highlighted that the offences are triable by a Magistrate, attract a maximum punishment of five years, investigation stood completed, and over nine months had elapsed since the release.
After examining affidavits and the video recording along with the transcript of the High Court hearing, the Supreme Court noted that while panel counsel had assisted the court after the adjournment was refused, the respondent’s conduct revealed a stark abuse of process and forum shopping.
Condemning the simultaneous pursuit of multiple judicial fora without disclosure, the Bench observed: “Respondent’s conduct in pursuing such parallel remedies, while keeping all judicial authorities in the dark, must be severely deprecated. It may be a right of the accused to challenge his arrest or to approach a court seeking bail; however, such conduct of pursuing remedies parallelly, particularly without adequate disclosure, clearly amounts to abuse of the process of law.”
The Court held that the respondent lacked uberrima fides, which forms the bedrock of equitable and discretionary relief in bail proceedings. The Bench recorded that the respondent: “…indulged in suppressio veri and suggestio falsi.”
Addressing the listing of the matter during court vacations, the Bench observed: “To have obtained listing of a petition, without adequate notice to the appellant, was clearly an attempt to steal a march by even misleading the Court.”
While noting that a very strict view would have been taken had the arrest been for a heinous offence, the Court determined that instead of outright cancellation of bail, the matter required remittal. The Court set aside the disposal of the criminal petition and revived it on the file of the High Court, directing that the respondent shall continue on interim bail on the earlier terms and conditions. The appellant was granted liberty to file a counter affidavit peremptorily within two weeks, with one week for rejoinder, and the Single Judge was requested to decide the criminal petition on its own merits, preferably by the end of the year.
The Bench also laid down general observations to ensure procedural uniformity regarding vacation listings across High Courts. It observed that when a Bench directs listing of a matter “two weeks hence” and the period falls in the midst of a vacation, registries should ordinarily compute the period by excluding the vacation duration, unless the Bench explicitly makes the matter returnable on a specific vacation date or directs listing before the Vacation Bench, subject to High Court rules.
Case Title: Senior Intelligence Officer v. Mohammed Kamran
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 7504 of 2026)
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu
Date: October 16, 2026
