<?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>2009 (7) TMI 1324 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194592</link>
    <description>Cancellation of bail is not confined to post-release conduct; a superior court may interfere where bail was granted on irrelevant material, without proper application of mind, or in breach of procedural fairness. Here, bail was considered on the same day as surrender, the complainant was not heard, the record was called for and the matter decided with unusual haste, and the magistrate relied on documents subsequent to cognizance and unrelated to the complaint. These facts supported the finding that discretion under Section 437 was exercised arbitrarily and for oblique reasons, so the cancellation order was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Sep 2017 11:36:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=489462" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (7) TMI 1324 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194592</link>
      <description>Cancellation of bail is not confined to post-release conduct; a superior court may interfere where bail was granted on irrelevant material, without proper application of mind, or in breach of procedural fairness. Here, bail was considered on the same day as surrender, the complainant was not heard, the record was called for and the matter decided with unusual haste, and the magistrate relied on documents subsequent to cognizance and unrelated to the complaint. These facts supported the finding that discretion under Section 437 was exercised arbitrarily and for oblique reasons, so the cancellation order was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194592</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>