.webp&w=2048&q=75)
The Supreme Court has not cancelled the bail of Mohammed Kamran, accused in an alleged GST evasion case of over Rs. 43 crore. It has, however, sent his bail plea back to the Karnataka High Court for a fresh hearing. A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu found that he did not disclose important facts to the High Court.
Background
The Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of Service Tax Intelligence, filed a private complaint before the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru. It alleged that Kamran, proprietor of M/s MK Traders, issued invoices without any supply of goods, availed fraudulent input tax credit and furnished false information to evade tax. The alleged loss is Rs. 43,08,22,936. The complaint invokes provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, punishable under Section 135.
Kamran was arrested on 16 September 2025, and his bail pleas before the trial court and the Sessions Court were rejected. On 26 December 2025, during the High Court’s winter vacation, a Single Judge granted him bail. The agency challenged this, saying its Special Public Prosecutor was out of the country and that its adjournment request was refused.
Additional Solicitor General N. Venkataraman argued that the agency was denied a fair hearing. He also pointed out that Kamran had filed a writ petition on 22 December 2025, in which interim release was refused, and had not told the Single Judge about it. Senior Advocate S. Nagamuthu, for Kamran, said the agency had failed to file its objections within the two weeks allowed. He added that the investigation was complete and that the offences carry a maximum punishment of five years.
After watching the video recording of the High Court hearing, the Bench noted that the agency’s counsel did make submissions on merits, though its Standing Counsel could not appear. It was troubled, however, by Kamran’s conduct. The Court said he had pursued parallel remedies before different forums without disclosure, and observed:
“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 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.”
The Bench also said that listing the petition during the vacation, without adequate notice to the agency, was an attempt to steal a march.
The Court set aside the part of the order that disposed of the bail petition, reviving it before the same Single Judge. Kamran will stay on interim bail on the earlier terms. The agency must file its counter affidavit within two weeks, and Kamran gets a week for his rejoinder. The High Court was asked to decide the petition preferably by the end of the year.
The Court also issued guidelines on vacation listing, stating:
“These observations, aimed at serving the interest of justice better, are essential to secure uniformity as well as to ensure that litigants are not prejudiced due to an inadvertent act of the court.”
Case Details
Case Title: Senior Intelligence Officer v. Mohammed Kamran
Case Number: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 7504 of 2026
Judges: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu
Decision Date: 16 October 2026
