<?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>2017 (3) TMI 1777 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283421</link>
    <description>Cancellation of bail was upheld because the later grant of bail ignored settled bail parameters and relied mainly on filing of the charge-sheet, which by itself does not weaken the prosecution case or amount to a sufficient change in circumstance. The court held that bail cannot be granted mechanically on general notions of liberty or presumption of innocence without considering the nature and gravity of the accusation, supporting evidence, possible influence on witnesses, and the interests of justice. Where earlier bail refusals had been made on the same factual basis, the subsequent order was found unsustainable for relying on irrelevant considerations and omitting relevant material.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Sep 2019 19:02:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=588289" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 1777 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283421</link>
      <description>Cancellation of bail was upheld because the later grant of bail ignored settled bail parameters and relied mainly on filing of the charge-sheet, which by itself does not weaken the prosecution case or amount to a sufficient change in circumstance. The court held that bail cannot be granted mechanically on general notions of liberty or presumption of innocence without considering the nature and gravity of the accusation, supporting evidence, possible influence on witnesses, and the interests of justice. Where earlier bail refusals had been made on the same factual basis, the subsequent order was found unsustainable for relying on irrelevant considerations and omitting relevant material.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283421</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>