<?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>2018 (7) TMI 173 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362865</link>
    <description>Anticipatory bail may be granted on a reasonable apprehension of arrest, and the absence of an FIR does not by itself invalidate that protection. The Sessions Court&#039;s order was found to be a speaking order because it reflected application of mind and recorded reasons for granting temporary protection. The department&#039;s own stand that only summons had been issued and that there was no intention to arrest weakened any claim of prejudice. The challenge was also noted to have been capable of being raised before the Sessions Court, which could modify its order under Section 439(2) CrPC. The petition challenging cancellation of anticipatory bail was rejected as without merit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Jul 2018 06:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=525739" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (7) TMI 173 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362865</link>
      <description>Anticipatory bail may be granted on a reasonable apprehension of arrest, and the absence of an FIR does not by itself invalidate that protection. The Sessions Court&#039;s order was found to be a speaking order because it reflected application of mind and recorded reasons for granting temporary protection. The department&#039;s own stand that only summons had been issued and that there was no intention to arrest weakened any claim of prejudice. The challenge was also noted to have been capable of being raised before the Sessions Court, which could modify its order under Section 439(2) CrPC. The petition challenging cancellation of anticipatory bail was rejected as without merit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362865</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>