<?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>1984 (6) TMI 264 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189401</link>
    <description>In serious non-bailable offences involving the Official Secrets Act and criminal conspiracy, bail should not be granted on a premature appraisal of the evidence. The court must consider the gravity of the allegations, the prima facie case, the character of the evidence, the risk of absconding or witness tampering, and the larger public or State interest. On the material available, the prosecution case could not be rejected at the threshold and the High Court&#039;s view that the evidence was insufficient for conviction was premature. The bail order was therefore set aside, the accused was to remain in judicial custody until further orders, and the trial court was to proceed independently of the High Court&#039;s observations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Jan 2017 17:48:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=454577" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (6) TMI 264 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189401</link>
      <description>In serious non-bailable offences involving the Official Secrets Act and criminal conspiracy, bail should not be granted on a premature appraisal of the evidence. The court must consider the gravity of the allegations, the prima facie case, the character of the evidence, the risk of absconding or witness tampering, and the larger public or State interest. On the material available, the prosecution case could not be rejected at the threshold and the High Court&#039;s view that the evidence was insufficient for conviction was premature. The bail order was therefore set aside, the accused was to remain in judicial custody until further orders, and the trial court was to proceed independently of the High Court&#039;s observations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189401</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>