<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2011 (3) TMI 742 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207433</link>
    <description>Bail already granted may be cancelled where later material shows misuse of liberty, suppression of facts, fabrication of documents, or a prima facie risk of interference with justice. The court treated cancellation of bail as distinct from rejection of bail and required cogent circumstances showing conduct that could affect the fairness of proceedings. On the record, inconsistent explanations about custody of the original lease, the absence of the document, the operation of the factory without a licence, and the co-accused&#039;s statement together supported an inference of involvement and justified cancellation. The challenge to the cancellation order therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2011 21:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=180912" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (3) TMI 742 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207433</link>
      <description>Bail already granted may be cancelled where later material shows misuse of liberty, suppression of facts, fabrication of documents, or a prima facie risk of interference with justice. The court treated cancellation of bail as distinct from rejection of bail and required cogent circumstances showing conduct that could affect the fairness of proceedings. On the record, inconsistent explanations about custody of the original lease, the absence of the document, the operation of the factory without a licence, and the co-accused&#039;s statement together supported an inference of involvement and justified cancellation. The challenge to the cancellation order therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207433</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>