Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
The Supreme Court held that an application for anticipatory bail u/s 438 of the CrPC is maintainable even when the accused is in judicial custody in connection with a different case. The purpose of Section 438 is to safeguard personal liberty and the presumption of innocence. While there is no fundamental right to anticipatory bail, the court should not deprive the accused of exercising this statutory right until their release from custody in the first offense. Doing so may enable investigating agencies to arrest the accused immediately upon release, denying them the opportunity to seek anticipatory bail. The court clarified the procedure for arrest in such cases and emphasized that no restriction can be read into Section 438 to preclude an accused from applying for anticipatory bail while in custody for a different offense, as it would go against the provision's intent. The only restriction is under sub-section (4) of Section 438 or other statutes.
The Supreme Court held that an application for anticipatory bail u/s 438 of the CrPC is maintainable even when the accused is in judicial custody in connection with a different case. The purpose of Section 438 is to safeguard personal liberty and the presumption of innocence. While there is no fundamental right to anticipatory bail, the court should not deprive the accused of exercising this statutory right until their release from custody in the first offense. Doing so may enable investigating agencies to arrest the accused immediately upon release, denying them the opportunity to seek anticipatory bail. The court clarified the procedure for arrest in such cases and emphasized that no restriction can be read into Section 438 to preclude an accused from applying for anticipatory bail while in custody for a different offense, as it would go against the provision's intent. The only restriction is under sub-section (4) of Section 438 or other statutes.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
