TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted where the investigation indicated fraudulent registration of a firm, extensive business transactions routed through entities controlled by the applicants, and the applicants' replies during investigation were found to be evasive and contradictory.
Analysis: The material placed before the Court showed that the disputed firm was registered on the strength of the complainant's PAN and that the investigation traced large-value transactions to entities connected with the applicants. The record also indicated that persons associated with the applicants were used in the opening of bank accounts and in the creation of firms, while the applicants did not furnish satisfactory particulars of the transactions or the persons involved. The Court held that the applicants' responses during investigation were on the face of it evasive, and that the reliance placed on the principle that mere non-cooperation cannot by itself justify arrest did not assist the applicants on the facts of the case. In these circumstances, custodial interrogation was found necessary to trace the full chain of transactions and the entities allegedly controlled by the applicants.
Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was declined because custodial interrogation was considered necessary and the applicants were found not to have cooperated meaningfully with the investigation.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
