# Suppression of Parallel Bail Proceedings is Abuse of Process: SC

- Link: https://section1.in/suppression-of-parallel-bail-proceedings-is-abuse-of-process-sc/
- Published: 2026-10-25T12:17:32+00:00
- Author: Ramprakash Rajagopal

Contents

 * [Appellant and impugned order challenged](https://section1.in/suppression-of-parallel-bail-proceedings-is-abuse-of-process-sc/#appellant-and-impugned-order-challenged)
 * [Other courts verdicts](https://section1.in/suppression-of-parallel-bail-proceedings-is-abuse-of-process-sc/#other-courts-verdicts)
 * [Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent](https://section1.in/suppression-of-parallel-bail-proceedings-is-abuse-of-process-sc/#core-legal-arguments-of-appellant-vs-respondent)
 * [Ratio Decidendi](https://section1.in/suppression-of-parallel-bail-proceedings-is-abuse-of-process-sc/#ratio-decidendi)
 * [Directions issued](https://section1.in/suppression-of-parallel-bail-proceedings-is-abuse-of-process-sc/#directions-issued)
 * [Important paragraphs](https://section1.in/suppression-of-parallel-bail-proceedings-is-abuse-of-process-sc/#important-paragraphs)

**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](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](https://section1.in/s-c-quashed-g-o-of-tamilnadu-for-anti-land-grabbing-cell-and-adviced-to-enact-appropriate-legislation-for-land-grabbing-cases/)
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](https://section1.in/plea-of-one-of-the-judges-to-recuse-from-the-matter-is-denied-as-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](https://section1.in/section-193-bnss-directions-issued-on-strict-adherence-to-timelines-for-investigation-and-filing-of-final-report/)
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](https://section1.in/bail-refused-till-recording-of-statements-of-protected-witnesses/)
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](https://section1.in/legislative-continuity-and-procedural-disruption/)
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](https://section1.in/no-provision-for-interim-bail-under-law-and-is-not-permissible-for-the-purposes-of-contesting-elections-much-less-for-campaigning/),
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](https://section1.in/habeas-corpus-unexplained-delay-in-disposing-the-representation-made-by-the-detenu-is-sufficient-to-set-aside-the-order-of-detention/)
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](https://section1.in/before-priyanka-srivastava-case-it-was-not-required-to-file-affidavits-for-petitions-u-s-1563-cr-p-c/)
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](https://section1.in/court-cannot-return-final-report/)
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](https://section1.in/literature-on-secondary-evidence-judgment-explaining-statutory-procedure-to-introduce-mark-and-appreciate-secondary-evidence/).
Appellant, however, [failed to place relevant](https://section1.in/even-when-incriminating-circumstances-were-read-over-and-questioned-under-section-313-cr-p-c-the-accused-had-failed-to-put-forth-his-defense-at-the-relevant-point-of-time/)
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](https://section1.in/pmla-section-88-cr-p-c-an-order-accepting-bonds-under-section-88-cr-p-c-from-the-accused-does-not-amount-to-a-grant-of-bail-a-detailed-discussion-on-arrest-summons-warrant-bail-and-bond-under/)
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](https://section1.in/section-451-cr-p-c-petition-for-disposal-return-of-property-cannot-be-filed-directly-by-invoking-article-226-without-invoking-section-451-cr-p-c-before-the-concerned-court/)
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](https://section1.in/cbi-had-the-authority-to-investigate-offences-involving-central-government-employees-under-a-central-act-without-needing-state-consent/),
      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](https://section1.in/section-306-ipc-suicide-break-ups-and-expressing-emotions-through-words-do-not-constitute-instigation-to-commit-suicide-but-suicides-depend-on-the-victims-mental-state/)

 * [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita](https://section1.in/procedure-in-rape-and-offences-against-women-cases-under-the-bharatiya-nagarik-suraksha-sanhita-2023-a-victim-centric-approach/),
   2023
    - Section 483 – [Special powers of High Court](https://section1.in/pmla-cognizance-under-pmla-special-court-can-take-cognizance-only-by-way-of-complaint-filed-by-the-authority-authorized-on-this-behalf/)
      or Court of Session regarding bail
 * Constitution of India
    - Article 21 – Protection of life and personal liberty
    - Article 226 – [Power of High Courts](https://section1.in/cr-p-c-1973-notes-no-6-general-introduction-to-inquiries-and-trials-part-4-criminal-courts-powers-administration/)
      to issue certain writs

[142792026_2026-10-16](https://section1.in/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/142792026_2026-10-16.pdf)
[Download](https://section1.in/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/142792026_2026-10-16.pdf)

### Further Study

 No Related Posts Found.