Suppressing parallel bail and writ proceedings is an abuse of process, Supreme Court says, and clarifies how listing deadlines should be handled during vacations

The Senior Intelligence Officer challenged the Karnataka High Court’s order granting Mohammed Kamran bail in a prosecution alleging fraudulent input tax credit and related offences under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, causing an alleged loss of approximately ₹43.08 crore.

After earlier bail applications were rejected, Kamran’s bail petition was pending before the High Court when he also filed a writ petition challenging his arrest and seeking release.

The writ court refused interim release, but that refusal was not disclosed when Kamran obtained urgent listing of his bail petition during the High Court’s winter vacation; bail was granted on 26 December 2025.

The appellant also alleged that its arguing counsel was absent and that it had insufficient opportunity to oppose bail, although counsel for the appellant did appear and make submissions.

1. Whether the High Court’s bail order should stand where the appellant’s opportunity to oppose bail was disputed and the respondent had pursued parallel remedies without disclosing material developments.

2. Whether the respondent’s obtaining urgent listing during the High Court’s winter vacation, without adequate notice to the appellant, warranted interference with the bail order.

3. Whether the bail order should be set aside outright or the petition remitted for fresh consideration while preserving the respondent’s interim liberty.

The Court considered the bail jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the relevant offences alleged under the CGST Act, 2017.

It applied the principles that a litigant seeking discretionary and equitable relief must act with uberrima fides and disclose material facts; pursuing parallel remedies without adequate disclosure may constitute abuse of process and suppressio veri and suggestio falsi.

It also observed that vacation listing should ordinarily follow the court’s directions and applicable High Court rules, with the registry generally excluding vacation days when computing a period directed by the court, unless the matter is specifically made returnable during vacation or directed to the Vacation Bench.

The Court found that the appellant was not wholly unrepresented, since its counsel made submissions, but accepted that the appellant’s Standing Counsel was unavailable and an adjournment had been sought.

More importantly, Kamran had sought release in a writ petition and had been refused interim relief, yet did not disclose that refusal when seeking urgent vacation listing of his pending bail petition.

The Court held that this conduct amounted to pursuing parallel remedies without adequate disclosure and was an abuse of process; the vacation listing also deprived the appellant of a fair opportunity to place the relevant developments before the Single Judge.

Given the circumstances and the period for which Kamran had remained at liberty, the Court considered remittal preferable to cancelling bail outright.

Kamran was directed to remain on interim bail on the existing terms until the Single Judge passed further orders.

The appellant was granted two weeks to file a counter-affidavit and Kamran one week thereafter to file a rejoinder; the petition was to be decided preferably by the end of 2026.