https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384948 In a money-laundering matter, the Court considered whether anticipatory bail should be granted in light of the gravity of the offence, the need for custodial interrogation, and the prima facie material against the petitioner. It held that severity of punishment alone is not decisive for bail, and treated the seriousness of the offence as a relevant factor. The Court also rejected reliance on plea bargaining under Section 265-A CrPC because the proviso excludes offences affecting the socio-economic conditions of the country. Finding the petitioner's Section 50 PMLA statement evasive and the investigation likely to be impeded by non-cooperation and witness influence, it refused pre-arrest bail. en-us Tue, 20 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Aug 2019 07:54:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384948 In a money-laundering matter, the Court considered whether anticipatory bail should be granted in light of the gravity of the offence, the need for custodial interrogation, and the prima facie material against the petitioner. It held that severity of punishment alone is not decisive for bail, and treated the seriousness of the offence as a relevant factor. The Court also rejected reliance on plea bargaining under Section 265-A CrPC because the proviso excludes offences affecting the socio-economic conditions of the country. Finding the petitioner's Section 50 PMLA statement evasive and the investigation likely to be impeded by non-cooperation and witness influence, it refused pre-arrest bail. Case-Laws Money Laundering Tue, 20 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384948