<?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>1997 (12) TMI 655 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194591</link>
    <description>A successive bail application is maintainable only on a substantial change in circumstances after earlier ? No, must avoid non-English. A second bail plea may be entertained only if there is a material change in the fact situation; absent that, the Court may refuse release in grave offences where prima facie evidence indicates involvement, the prosecution case has advanced, the victim has been examined, and there is a real risk of prejudice to the trial or danger to the victim. The Court balanced personal liberty against public interest, and held that the rule that bail is the norm does not apply unqualifiedly where societal welfare, public justice, and the need to protect the integrity of the trial weigh against release. Bail was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Sep 2017 10:56:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=489458" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (12) TMI 655 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194591</link>
      <description>A successive bail application is maintainable only on a substantial change in circumstances after earlier ? No, must avoid non-English. A second bail plea may be entertained only if there is a material change in the fact situation; absent that, the Court may refuse release in grave offences where prima facie evidence indicates involvement, the prosecution case has advanced, the victim has been examined, and there is a real risk of prejudice to the trial or danger to the victim. The Court balanced personal liberty against public interest, and held that the rule that bail is the norm does not apply unqualifiedly where societal welfare, public justice, and the need to protect the integrity of the trial weigh against release. Bail was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194591</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>