<?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>2016 (8) TMI 1487 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT  </title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286163</link>
    <description>Interim anticipatory bail was made absolute after the petitioner joined the investigation and the State confirmed that custodial interrogation was not required. In these circumstances, the Court held that the basis for continuing only interim protection no longer survived, while expressly refraining from expressing any view on the merits. The relief was continued subject to the statutory conditions governing anticipatory bail, and the petition was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Feb 2020 19:59:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=603967" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (8) TMI 1487 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT  </title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286163</link>
      <description>Interim anticipatory bail was made absolute after the petitioner joined the investigation and the State confirmed that custodial interrogation was not required. In these circumstances, the Court held that the basis for continuing only interim protection no longer survived, while expressly refraining from expressing any view on the merits. The relief was continued subject to the statutory conditions governing anticipatory bail, and the petition was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286163</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>