TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the second bail application was maintainable in the absence of any change in circumstance.
Analysis: The application was a second bail request under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, arising from allegations under Section 132(1)(b)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The only ground considered was whether any subsequent change in circumstance justified re-agitation of bail. As no fresh circumstance was shown, no basis was found to entertain the second application.
Conclusion: The second bail application was not entertainable and stood dismissed.
Final Conclusion: The petitioner was denied bail, and the criminal miscellaneous second bail application was rejected for want of any change in circumstance.
Ratio Decidendi: A second bail application is not maintainable unless a change in circumstance is shown.
TaxTMI 
