Senior Intelligence Officer v. Mohammed Kamran

2026 INSC 1140 · Criminal Appeal of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7504 of 2026) · Decided 16 October 2026

Bench: Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu, JJ. (Order by Dipankar Datta, J.)
Impugned order: Order dated 26.12.2025 of a Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No. 16884 of 2025, granting bail
Parties: Appellant: Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of Service Tax Intelligence (the complainant). Respondent: the accused, proprietor of a trading firm
Statutes: Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, Ss. 16(2)(b), 132(1)(b), (c), (f) and 135; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, S. 483; Constitution of India, Arts. 21 and 226
Counsel: Mr. N. Venkataraman, Additional Solicitor General, for the appellant; Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Senior Advocate, for the respondent
Result: Appeal disposed of. Disposal of the bail petition set aside and the petition revived before the same Single Judge; respondent to continue on interim bail; directions on computing listing periods that fall in a vacation

Catchwords

Bail — Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, S. 483 — Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, Ss. 132 and 135 — Bail obtained during the High Court’s winter vacation on an urgent-listing memo — Non-disclosure of the writ court’s refusal of ad-interim release and of the Sessions Court’s rejection of bail — Parallel remedies — Forum shopping — Suppressio veri, suggestio falsi — Uberrima fides the foundation of the equitable and discretionary bail jurisdiction — Held, abuse of the process of law. — Disposal of the bail petition set aside and the matter remitted to the same Single Judge, with interim bail continued — Listing “two weeks hence” falling in a vacation — Period ordinarily to be computed excluding the vacation.

Short Note

The accused’s bail petition was pending in the High Court. Meanwhile he applied for bail in the Sessions Court and sought release in a writ petition. He then had the bail petition listed urgently during the vacation without disclosing that both requests had been refused. That is forum shopping and an abuse of the process of law. Uberrima fides is the foundation for invoking the discretionary jurisdiction to grant bail. The offences were not heinous, so the Supreme Court did not cancel bail. It set aside the disposal of the bail petition, revived it before the same Single Judge, and continued the accused on interim bail. Where a petition is directed to be listed “two weeks hence” and that period ends during a vacation, the registry should ordinarily compute it excluding the vacation. The exceptions are a specific returnable date during the vacation or a direction to list before the Vacation Bench.

Headnote

Appellant not wholly unrepresented, but denied its Standing Counsel. The video recording of the hearing showed that counsel present for the appellant on 26.12.2025 did make some submissions on the merits. It was equally true that he had sought an adjournment because the Standing Counsel had been engaged to appear. When the adjournment was refused, he assisted the Court as its officer by opposing bail. The appellant was not wholly unrepresented, but it could not be represented by its Standing Counsel. [Paras 19–20]
Suppression of material facts; lack of uberrima fides. The accused filed the bail petition in the High Court on 09.12.2025. The next day he filed a similar application in the Sessions Court, which was rejected while the High Court petition was pending. On 22.12.2025 he filed a writ petition challenging his arrest and seeking quashing of the complaint. In it he also sought ad-interim release, pleading that a bail application under S. 483 BNSS was not an efficacious remedy, and ad-interim release was refused. Later the same day he moved a memo to list the bail petition, which was listed on 26.12.2025. The refusal was not disclosed to the Single Judge. The accused abused the process of law and suppressed material facts. There was a clear lack of uberrima fides, which is the foundation for invoking the equitable and discretionary jurisdiction for grant of bail. [Paras 21–23]
Parallel remedies amount to forum shopping and abuse of process. The accused pursued bail and release before the Sessions Court and in his writ petition while his bail petition was pending in the High Court. Neither the Sessions Court’s rejection of bail (the fourth in the series) nor the writ court’s refusal to release him was brought to the High Court’s notice. Forum shopping was evident; he indulged in suppressio veri and suggestio falsi. An accused may have a right to challenge his arrest or to seek bail. But pursuing remedies in parallel, particularly without adequate disclosure, while keeping all judicial authorities in the dark, is an abuse of the process of law that must be severely deprecated. [Paras 25–26]
Vacation listing without notice: an attempt to steal a march. The petition was listed during the winter vacation on the accused’s memo, moved after 22.12.2025. In view of the earlier direction, it should ideally have been listed when the High Court reopened. It had not been made returnable on a specific date during the vacation, nor directed to be listed before the Vacation Bench. Obtaining its listing without adequate notice to the appellant was clearly an attempt to steal a march, even by misleading the Court. Had the arrest been for a heinous offence, the Court would have taken a very strict view. [Paras 27–28]
Relief: remand to the same Single Judge; interim bail continued. The bail need not be set aside at this stage, but the matter required fresh consideration by the Single Judge who had dealt with it on 26.12.2025. The part of the impugned order disposing of the criminal petition was set aside, and the petition stands revived. In place of the bail granted, the accused remains on interim bail on the earlier terms and conditions. The appellant may file a counter affidavit within two weeks, peremptorily, and the accused a rejoinder within one week. The Single Judge is to decide on merits, preferably by the end of the year. [Paras 29–30]
Computing “two weeks hence” during a vacation. When a Bench of a High Court directs listing “two weeks hence” and the day after the period expires falls in a vacation, the registry should ordinarily compute the two weeks excluding the vacation. If the Bench makes the petition returnable on a specific date during the vacation, or directs listing before the Vacation Bench, it should be listed accordingly. This is subject to the rules of each High Court. The aim is uniformity, and to ensure that litigants are not prejudiced by an inadvertent act of the court. [Paras 33–35]

Facts in Brief

ComplaintThe appellant filed a private complaint before the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru. It alleged that the accused issued invoices without supplying goods, availed fraudulent input tax credit, and falsified documents, causing a loss of ₹43,08,22,936.
16.09.2025Accused arrested. Successive bail applications rejected by the trial court and the Sessions Court.
09.12.2025Criminal petition for bail filed in the High Court.
10.12.2025Similar bail application filed in the Sessions Court; later rejected while the High Court petition was pending.
12.12.2025First listing in the High Court: copy to be served on the appellant’s Standing Counsel, and statement of objections to be filed within two weeks.
20.12.2025High Court’s winter vacation begins.
22.12.2025W.P. No. 38771 of 2025 filed, challenging the arrest and seeking ad-interim release; release refused. Same day, a memo for listing the bail petition.
26.12.2025Bail granted by the Single Judge during the vacation.
07.07.2026Writ petition dismissed.
10.09.2026Supreme Court permitted additional affidavits; the accused produced a recording of the 26.12.2025 hearing.

Contentions

Appellant (complainant)

Natural justice was violated: the Standing Counsel was abroad, the adjournment was refused, and the petition was heard hurriedly during the vacation. Counsel who appeared had no instructions to contest on merits. The accused had not disclosed that ad-interim relief was refused in his writ petition. He had abused the process of law and should be dealt with firmly. It was also alleged that he resisted a search and fled, and a separate FIR was registered.

Respondent (accused)

The absence of the arguing counsel was not raised before the Single Judge, and counsel present did argue the merits. The appellant failed to file objections within the two weeks allowed. The accused had been in custody a long time, the investigation was complete, and the offences are Magistrate-triable, with a maximum punishment of five years. He had been on bail for over nine months.

Order

The part of the impugned order disposing of the criminal petition is set aside, and the petition revives on the file of the High Court. Instead of the bail granted, the respondent shall continue on interim bail on the earlier terms and conditions until the Single Judge passes further orders. The appellant may file a counter affidavit within two weeks, peremptorily, and the respondent a rejoinder within a week. The Single Judge shall decide the petition on its own merits, preferably by the end of the year. The appeal is disposed of. [Paras 29–32]

Prepared by LAW LIBRARY. Online. This summary is for quick reference only. It is not a substitute for the full text of the judgment, which should be read before relying on it.