SC Warns Against Forum Shopping In Bail Cases, Clarifies Urgent Listing Of Matters During Court Vacations

The Supreme Court has held that a litigant seeking equitable and discretionary relief such as bail must approach the court with absolute good faith. Suppressing material facts, including the rejection of parallel bail applications or requests for interim relief, and pursuing parallel remedies before different fora can amount to an abuse of the process of law, Court said.

A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu made the observation while setting aside part of an order passed by the Karnataka High Court during its winter vacation and reviving a bail plea filed by Mohammed Kamran in a case concerning alleged evasion of CGST, resulting in a claimed revenue loss of Rs 43,08,22,936.

The Bench found that Kamran had not disclosed before the high court that a writ court had earlier refused to grant him interim relief for release from custody. He had also pursued bail proceedings before the sessions court while his bail plea before the high court was pending.

Court said such conduct amounted to forum shopping and suppression of material facts.

“The fact that the respondent engaged in forum shopping is evident... He indulged in suppressio veri and suggestio falsi,” the Bench said.

It added that while an accused has the right to challenge his arrest or seek bail, pursuing parallel remedies without adequate disclosure “clearly amounts to abuse of the process of law.”

Urgent listing during court vacations

Court also clarified as to how matters directed to be listed after a specified period should be dealt with when the intervening period includes a court vacation.

The Bench noted that Kamran's criminal petition before the high court was initially listed on December 12, 2025, when the appellant was directed to file objections within two weeks. However, although the high court's winter vacation commenced on December 20, the petition was listed on December 26 pursuant to a memo filed by Kamran's counsel.

Court said the petition should ordinarily have been listed after the high court reopened, particularly since it had not been made returnable on a specific date during the vacation and the Single Judge had not directed 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,” the Bench observed.

Court further held that obtaining urgent listing during a court vacation without adequate notice to the opposing party is a procedural irregularity that undermines judicial fairness. Urgent listing during vacation should ordinarily take place only where specifically directed by the bench, subject to the applicable high court rules, Court clarified.

The Bench further clarified that where a high court directs that a matter be listed “two weeks hence” and the expiry of that period falls during a court vacation, the registry should ordinarily exclude the vacation period while computing the two-week period.

However, if the bench specifically makes the petition returnable on a date falling during the vacation, or directs that it be listed before the Vacation Bench, it should be listed accordingly, subject to the relevant high court rules.

Court said the clarification was intended to ensure uniformity and prevent litigants from being prejudiced by inadvertent acts of the court.

Revival of the bail plea

The appeal was filed by a senior intelligence officer, who alleged that the Karnataka High Court had incorrectly recorded the appearance of the Special Public Prosecutor/Senior Standing Counsel even though the counsel was not in the country on the relevant date. A request for adjournment on account of the counsel's absence was also allegedly rejected.

The appellant further alleged that a search conducted at Kamran's declared residential premises and his actual residence met with stiff resistance, following which he fled. A separate FIR was registered in connection with the incident.

Kamran was arrested on September 16, 2025. His successive bail applications before the trial court and the additional city civil and sessions judge were rejected.

While the Supreme Court found that the high court proceedings did not justify the conclusion that the appellant was wholly unrepresented, it held that the appellant could not have been represented by its standing counsel on the relevant date.

The Bench ultimately held that although the bail granted by the single judge need not be cancelled at this stage, the matter required fresh consideration.

It therefore set aside the portion of the high court's order disposing of the criminal petition and revived the bail plea. Instead of the bail granted by the single judge, Kamran was directed to continue on interim bail on the earlier terms and conditions.

The appellant was given two weeks to file a counter-affidavit, while Kamran was given one week to file a rejoinder. The single judge was directed to decide the bail plea on merits, preferably by the end of 2026. The interim bail will continue until further orders are passed by the single judge.

Case Title: Senior Intelligence Officer Vs Mohammed Kamran

Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu

Date of Judgment: October 16, 2026