Judgment Intelligence
OtherSenior Intelligence Officer (Directorate General of Service Tax Intelligence) v. Mohammed Kamran
2026 INSC 1140
Criminal Appeal No. 4994 of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 7504 of 2026)
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 16 October 2026
- Bench
- Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — Sections 16(2)(b), 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), 132(1)(f), 135; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 483; Constitution of India — Articles 21, 226
Final Outcome
Appeal disposed of. The part of the order disposing of the bail petition is set aside and the petition revived; the respondent stays on interim bail, the agency may file a counter affidavit in two weeks, and the Single Judge is to decide afresh, preferably by year-end (paras 30-31).
Key holdings
- Pursuing parallel remedies for bail or release before different forums without adequate disclosure is an abuse of the process of law (para 26).
- Suppressing an adverse order from the bail court shows lack of uberimma fides, the foundation for invoking the bail jurisdiction (paras 21-22).
- Obtaining vacation listing of a bail petition without adequate notice to the other side is an attempt to steal a march (para 27).
- When "two weeks hence" ends during a vacation, the period should ordinarily exclude the vacation unless the Bench fixed a vacation date or directed listing before the Vacation Bench (para 34).
Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
The Directorate General of Service Tax Intelligence complained that the respondent, proprietor of M/s MK Traders, issued invoices without supply and availed fraudulent input tax credit, causing a loss of Rs.43.08 crore (paras 2-3). Arrested on 16.09.2025, he lost bail pleas in the trial court and the Sessions Court (para 6). His High Court petition of 9 December 2025 was to be answered within two weeks (paras 7, 22). He then moved the Sessions Court again and filed a writ petition seeking release, which was refused on 22 December; the same day a memo got his petition listed on 26 December, in the winter vacation, when a single judge granted bail (paras 8, 22).
Court's Findings
The agency was not wholly unrepresented, as the lawyer present addressed the merits once an adjournment was refused, though its engaged standing lawyer could not appear (para 20). The respondent abused the process and suppressed material facts, showing a lack of uberimma fides, the foundation for invoking the discretionary bail jurisdiction (para 21). He pursued bail and release before the Sessions Court and the writ court while his bail plea was pending, and hid both refusals from the High Court: forum shopping, suppressio veri and suggestio falsi (paras 22, 25). Pursuing parallel remedies without disclosure is an abuse of the process of law (para 26). Getting the petition listed in the vacation without notice was an attempt to steal a march (para 27). As the offence is not heinous, bail need not be set aside, but the petition must be decided afresh (paras 28-29). Where a "two weeks hence" date falls in a vacation, the registry should ordinarily exclude the vacation (para 34).
Legal Principle
An accused who pursues bail or release before several forums at once without disclosing adverse orders abuses the process of law and lacks the good faith that the discretionary bail jurisdiction requires. A petition directed to be listed "two weeks hence" should ordinarily be listed after a vacation, the vacation being excluded (paras 21, 26, 34).