Suppression of Parallel Bail Proceedings is Abuse of Process: SC

Senior Intelligence Officer v. Mohammed Kamran – Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7504 of 2026) – 2026 INSC 1140 – October 16, 2026 – Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu, JJ.

https://www.sci.gov.in/view-pdf/?diary_no=142792026&type=j&order_date=2026-10-16&from=latest_judgements_order

Appellant and impugned order challenged

The prosecuting agency challenged the judgment and order dated 26th December 2025 rendered by a Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, wherein bail was granted to the respondent in connection with offenses alleged under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act [paras 2, 8].

Other courts verdicts

The Special Court for Economic Offences and the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge consecutively rejected the bail applications submitted on behalf of the respondent [para 6]. Subsequently, a Single Judge of the High Court entertained the criminal petition during the winter vacation and granted bail to the respondent [paras 2, 8].

Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent

The appellant contended that natural justice was violated because the criminal petition was taken up during winter vacation without its regular standing counsel present and without adequate time to place formal objections on record, highlighting that the respondent disentitled himself to discretionary relief by engaging in forum shopping and suppressing the writ court’s refusal of interim release [paras 4, 10, 11, 12, 13]. Conversely, the respondent submitted that the agency was represented by panel counsel who ultimately addressed the merits after failing to file objections within the granted timeframe, further maintaining that because investigation was complete, the offenses were triable by a Magistrate, the maximum sentence was five years, and extensive incarceration had already occurred, personal liberty ought not to be curtailed [paras 14, 15].

Ratio Decidendi

The exercise of discretionary jurisdiction to grant bail is founded upon utmost good faith, meaning that pursuing concurrent remedies across different judicial fora while suppressing vital adverse developments—such as the rejection of parallel bail prayers or refusal of interim release—amounts to an abuse of the judicial process [paras 21, 25, 26]. Urgently listing matters through vacation memos without adequate notice to the opposing side or without an express direction from the regular bench disrupts procedural fairness and judicial decorum [paras 27, 34, 35]. Where such suppression and procedural impropriety occur, the appropriate course is not to revoke liberty immediately if non-heinous economic allegations are involved, but to vacate the final disposal, preserve interim bail, and remit the matter for a fair, comprehensive rehearing on merits [paras 28, 29, 30].

Directions issued

The Supreme Court set aside that part of the impugned order whereby the criminal petition stood disposed of, directing that the petition shall revive on the file of the High Court with the respondent continuing on interim bail under existing terms [para 30]. The appellant was granted liberty to file a counter affidavit within two weeks peremptorily, the respondent was granted one week thereafter to submit a rejoinder, and the Single Judge was requested to decide the revived petition afresh on its own merits, preferably by the end of the year [para 30].

Important paragraphs

25. First, pursuit of parallel remedies before various fora by the respondent. He simultaneously pursued proceedings seeking bail/release before the Sessions Court as well as in his writ petition before the High Court while the criminal petition seeking bail before the High Court was pending consideration. Rejection of the prayer for bail (fourth in the series) by the Sessions Court as well as refusal by the writ court to order release from custody were particularly not brought to the notice of the High Court. The fact that the respondent engaged in forum shopping is evident. Appellant, however, failed to place relevant materials on record by not filing its objections; may be, the time was too short. Also, in view of the winter vacation that followed and without having notice of the memo moved by the respondent for urgent listing of his criminal petition on 26th December, 2025, neither the appellant nor the learned counsel who appeared on 26th December, 2025 on its behalf could bring all facts to the attention of the Single Judge. Of utmost importance is that the respondent too did not! He indulged in suppressio veri and suggestio falsi.

26. 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.

27. Secondly, the criminal petition before the Single Judge was listed, upon a memo having been moved by the learned counsel for the respondent, post 22nd December, 2025, during the winter vacation of the High Court. Ideally, in view of the earlier direction, the criminal petition should have been listed upon reopening of the High Court after the winter vacation particularly when such petition had not been made returnable on a specific date falling during such vacation or the Single Judge had not directed its listing before the Vacation Bench. 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.

Resources

• Judgments Cited
  • None.
• Acts and Sections Involved
  • Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
    • Section 16(2)(b) – Eligibility and conditions for taking input tax credit
    • Section 132(1)(b) – Issuing invoice or bill without supply of goods or services
    • Section 132(1)(c) – Availing input tax credit using invoices without supply
    • Section 132(1)(f) – Falsifying or substituting financial records or producing fake accounts
    • Section 135 – Presumption of culpable mental state

• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
  • Section 483 – Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail
• Constitution of India
  • Article 21 – Protection of life and personal liberty
  • Article 226 – Power of High Courts to issue certain writs