https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175398 A person who appears before the court in response to summons and submits to its jurisdiction can be treated as being in custody for the purpose of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The court rejected the argument that summons appearance alone excludes custody or prevents remand under Section 309(2), holding that summons is only a process to secure attendance and does not confer any assurance of bail. On the facts, the court also noted prima facie material of involvement in the alleged conspiracy, receipt of illegal gratification through a controlled company, and a risk of witness influence, so the gravity of the allegations and the possibility of interference with investigation justified refusal of bail. en-us Wed, 08 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Nov 2015 18:18:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175398 A person who appears before the court in response to summons and submits to its jurisdiction can be treated as being in custody for the purpose of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The court rejected the argument that summons appearance alone excludes custody or prevents remand under Section 309(2), holding that summons is only a process to secure attendance and does not confer any assurance of bail. On the facts, the court also noted prima facie material of involvement in the alleged conspiracy, receipt of illegal gratification through a controlled company, and a risk of witness influence, so the gravity of the allegations and the possibility of interference with investigation justified refusal of bail. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 08 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175398