The Supreme Court has set aside the Karnataka High Court's order granting regular bail in an alleged ₹43.08 crore GST fraud case — yaani about ₹43 crore (₹430 million) of alleged revenue loss — and sent the bail plea back for a fresh decision, holding that the accused pursued parallel remedies while suppressing material facts, which the Court called an abuse of the process of law and forum shopping.

A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu, in its judgment dated 16 October 2026 in Senior Intelligence Officer v. Mohammed Kamran, converted the regular bail into interim bail on the earlier terms until the High Court decides the petition afresh, preferably by the end of the year, and gave the tax department two weeks to file its counter-affidavit.

The department alleges that Kamran, proprietor of M/s MK Traders, issued invoices without supplying goods, availed fraudulent input tax credit and falsified documents under the CGST Act — allegations that remain to be tried.

Kamran was arrested on 16 September 2025 and his bail pleas were rejected by the trial court and the Sessions Court. The High Court granted him bail on 26 December 2025 during its winter vacation. The Supreme Court noted that four days earlier, on 22 December, a writ court had refused him ad-interim release in a parallel petition challenging his arrest — a fact never disclosed to the judge who granted bail.

"Respondent's conduct in pursuing such parallel remedies, while keeping all judicial authorities in the dark, must be severely deprecated... clearly amounts to abuse of the process of law," the Bench said, adding that he had indulged in "suppressio veri and suggestio falsi" (suppression of truth and suggestion of falsehood).

Additional Solicitor General N. Venkataraman argued for the department; senior counsel S. Nagamuthu, for Kamran, pointed out that the investigation is complete and the offences carry a maximum of five years.

The Court also laid down guidance for all High Courts: when a listing date falls during a vacation, registries should ordinarily exclude the vacation period while computing the date, unless the Bench specifically directs a vacation listing.

Sources: Law Trend, LawStreet Journal, Law Finder, TaxGuru and Court Book reports of the judgment.