The Court did not decide whether bail should ultimately be granted — that is for the Single Judge, preferably by the end of 2026. Its observations on the parties' conduct are not findings on the merits of the tax-evasion allegations, and the appeal was disposed of, not allowed or dismissed on the bail merits.
- Case
- Senior Intelligence Officer v. Mohammed Kamran
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decision
- Citation
- 2026 INSC 1140
- Bench
- Dipankar Datta; Sheel Nagu
- Judgment by
- Dipankar Datta
- Case numbers
- Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7504 of 2026
- Outcome
- Appeal disposed of: the High Court's bail order is not set aside at this stage; the criminal petition revives for fresh decision on the merits, with the respondent on interim bail meanwhile.
The order
On 16 October 2026, in a reportable order authored by Justice Dipankar Datta, the Supreme Court dealt with an appeal by the Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of Service Tax Intelligence, against a Karnataka High Court Single Judge's grant of bail to Mohammed Kamran — accused of issuing invoices without supply of goods and availing fraudulent input tax credit, causing an alleged loss of Rs.43,08,22,936.
The Court did not set aside the bail at this stage. But it was unsparing about how the bail was obtained: parallel remedies pursued in multiple fora without disclosure, a refused interim-release prayer suppressed from the Single Judge, and a vacation listing secured by memo without adequate notice to the appellant. The criminal petition stands revived for fresh consideration by the same Single Judge — with the respondent continuing on interim bail meanwhile — and the order lays down guidance on urgent listings during High Court vacations.
The complaint and the bail journey
The appellant's private complaint before the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru alleged offences under Section 16(2)(b) read with Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c) and 132(1)(f) of the CGST Act, 2017, punishable under Section 135: the respondent, proprietor of M/s MK Traders, allegedly issued invoices without supply of goods, availed fraudulent input tax credit, falsified documents and financial statements, and furnished false information to evade tax. A search at his declared and actual residences met stiff resistance and he fled, leading to a separate FIR.
Arrested on 16 September 2025, Kamran's successive bail applications before the trial court and the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge were rejected. He then filed Criminal Petition No. 16884 of 2025 before the High Court on 9 December 2025; first listed on 12 December 2025, the appellant was directed to file objections within two weeks. Though the High Court's winter vacation began on 20 December 2025, the petition was listed on 26 December 2025 on a memo moved by the respondent's counsel — and bail was granted that day.
Was the appellant heard?
The appellant's primary grievance was procedural: it had no real opportunity to present its case. Its arguing counsel — the Special Public Prosecutor/Senior Standing Counsel — was not in the country on 26 December 2025; the High Court wrongly recorded his appearance; the panel counsel present had no instructions to argue on the merits and sought an adjournment, which was refused; and the petition was heard and disposed of hurriedly during the winter vacation. Denied a full hearing, the appellant said, natural justice was 'brazenly violated'.
The respondent's senior counsel countered that the adjournment point was never taken before the Single Judge, that the counsel present first faintly sought an adjournment but then addressed the Court on the merits, and that the appellant had in any case failed to file its objections within the two weeks granted.
The Court examined the additional affidavits it had permitted (order dated 10 September 2026) and the pen-drive recording of the 26 December hearing with its transcript. Its finding was split: the counsel present did advance some submissions on the merits, so it would 'not be entirely correct to claim that the appellant was wholly unrepresented' — but a request for adjournment on the ground that the Standing Counsel was engaged had indeed been made and refused, and 'it stands to reason that the appellant could not be represented by its Standing Counsel.'
Forum-shopping and suppression
What 'bothers' the Court more was the respondent's conduct. The day after filing the High Court criminal petition (10 December 2025), he filed a similar bail application before the Sessions Court — rejected while the High Court petition was pending. On 22 December 2025 he filed Writ Petition No. 38771 of 2025 challenging the legality of his arrest and seeking quashing, with an ad-interim prayer for release on the ground that bail under Section 483 BNSS was 'not efficacious'. The ad-interim prayer was refused that day; later the same day, a memo was moved for urgent listing of the criminal petition, which was listed for 26 December. The refusal was never disclosed to the Single Judge.
'He indulged in suppressio veri and suggestio falsi.' The Court held that pursuing bail or release before the Sessions Court and the writ court while the criminal petition was pending, 'particularly without adequate disclosure, clearly amounts to abuse of the process of law.' The Court deprecated the conduct 'severely' — noting that while challenging arrest or seeking bail is a right, parallel pursuit without disclosure is not. It added that the appellant too had failed to place materials on record by not filing objections — though the time was short and it had no notice of the memo seeking the 26 December listing.
Rehearing — and a rule for vacation listings
Ordinarily, the Court said, it would have dismissed the special leave petition at the outset; notice was issued only because of the special facts. Having found both procedural unfairness to the appellant and abuse of process by the respondent, it chose a middle path: the bail granted is not set aside now, but that part of the impugned order disposing of the criminal petition is — the petition revives on the High Court's file for fresh consideration by the same Single Judge, with the respondent continuing on interim bail meanwhile.
The appellant has liberty to file a counter affidavit within two weeks, peremptorily; the respondent gets a week for a rejoinder; the Single Judge is to decide on the merits, preferably by the end of the year, with interim bail operative until then.
Before parting, the Court laid down guidance of general application: where a High Court Bench directs listing of a petition 'two weeks hence' and the resulting date falls in a vacation, the registry should ordinarily compute the two weeks excluding the vacation period — unless the petition is made returnable on a specific date falling in the vacation or the Bench directs listing before the Vacation Bench, subject to the High Courts' rules. To have obtained the 26 December listing by memo, without adequate notice to the appellant, was 'clearly an attempt to steal a march by even misleading the Court.'
BANTHRY ANALYSISFor law students
Two doctrines share this order, and the Court keeps them distinct. First, uberimma fides — utmost good faith — as the foundation of discretionary bail jurisdiction: the Court treats suppression of the refused ad-interim prayer not as a technicality but as a jurisdictional fact, because bail is equitable relief and equity demands clean hands. Note the Latin pairing the Court uses: suppressio veri (suppression of truth) and suggestio falsi (suggestion of falsehood) — learn both.
Second, natural justice in adversarial proceedings: the Court refuses the easy binary (wholly unrepresented vs. fully heard) and instead asks the functional question — could the appellant be represented by its chosen counsel? The answer was no, and that sufficed for a rehearing even though some submissions were made. Finally, the vacation-listing guidance is pure court administration — a small, practical rule aimed at uniformity so that 'litigants are not prejudiced due to an inadvertent act of the court.' Expect it to be cited in registry practice notes.
READING PROMPTSQuestions for a closer reading
- Why did the Court describe the respondent's conduct as 'suppressio veri and suggestio falsi', and how did that bear on the bail jurisdiction?
- The appellant claimed it was denied natural justice. What did the Court find on the affidavits and the hearing recording — and why did it still order a rehearing?
- What rule did the Court lay down for listing a petition during a High Court vacation when the bench had directed listing 'two weeks hence'?
