Proportionality in company penalty quantification requires aggravating and mitigating factors; mechanical multiplication of director liability is impe...
Page of 4813
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3341 to 3360 of 96257 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC, exercising jurisdiction under Section 480(6) B.N.S.S., allowed the bail application of A v. State in an economic offence under Section 132(1)(b)(c)(f)(l) of the 2017 Act, a non-bailable offence triable by Magistrate. The petitioner had been in custody since 03.06.2024 and cognizance was taken on 01.02.2025, with only partial examination of three out of ten witnesses and no delay attributable to the accused. Noting the constitutional mandate of Article 21 and the procedural safeguard against undue trial delay, as well as the absence of recorded reasons by the trial court justifying continued incarceration, HC invoked Section 480(6) B.N.S.S. and directed that the petitioner be enlarged on bail, subject to usual conditions.
HC, exercising jurisdiction under Section 480(6) B.N.S.S., allowed the bail application of A v. State in an economic offence under Section 132(1)(b)(c)(f)(l) of the 2017 Act, a non-bailable offence triable by Magistrate. The petitioner had been in custody since 03.06.2024 and cognizance was taken on 01.02.2025, with only partial examination of three out of ten witnesses and no delay attributable to the accused. Noting the constitutional mandate of Article 21 and the procedural safeguard against undue trial delay, as well as the absence of recorded reasons by the trial court justifying continued incarceration, HC invoked Section 480(6) B.N.S.S. and directed that the petitioner be enlarged on bail, subject to usual conditions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4813 
Join Channel 
