<?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>2011 (3) TMI 1768 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277607</link>
    <description>In a PMLA bail context, the materials from investigation, the alleged confession, and the gravity of laundering allegations were treated as supporting the prosecution case. The court also considered the risk of interference with investigation and evidence, and the fact that bail had previously been refused. The Supreme Court&#039;s permission to renew the request after three months did not, on these facts, justify release. The petitioner was therefore not entitled to bail.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2018 13:16:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=546581" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (3) TMI 1768 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277607</link>
      <description>In a PMLA bail context, the materials from investigation, the alleged confession, and the gravity of laundering allegations were treated as supporting the prosecution case. The court also considered the risk of interference with investigation and evidence, and the fact that bail had previously been refused. The Supreme Court&#039;s permission to renew the request after three months did not, on these facts, justify release. The petitioner was therefore not entitled to bail.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277607</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>