<?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>2016 (2) TMI 894 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180431</link>
    <description>In a Customs Act prosecution concerning alleged transport and handling of a gold consignment, regular bail was granted because custody had been substantial, the investigation was largely complete and the complaint had been filed. The Court treated the delay in arrest and completion of proceedings as relevant bail factors, and noted that the seized goods were already with customs authorities. It further found limited risk of tampering or witness influence, as the witnesses were mainly official witnesses, and considered that the absence of completed confiscation proceedings did not justify continued incarceration. Bail was therefore allowed subject to conditions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Mar 2016 09:36:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=421236" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (2) TMI 894 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180431</link>
      <description>In a Customs Act prosecution concerning alleged transport and handling of a gold consignment, regular bail was granted because custody had been substantial, the investigation was largely complete and the complaint had been filed. The Court treated the delay in arrest and completion of proceedings as relevant bail factors, and noted that the seized goods were already with customs authorities. It further found limited risk of tampering or witness influence, as the witnesses were mainly official witnesses, and considered that the absence of completed confiscation proceedings did not justify continued incarceration. Bail was therefore allowed subject to conditions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180431</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>