<?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>2009 (2) TMI 898 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286585</link>
    <description>In bailable offences, Section 436 CrPC gives an accused an absolute right to bail if willing to furnish bail or a bond on reasonable terms. The court&#039;s role is limited to verifying the bailable nature of the offence and the accused&#039;s compliance with bail conditions. The complainant has no right to be heard before grant of bail in such matters, and failure to hear the complainant does not, by itself, violate natural justice or render the bail order void. Cancellation of bail in a bailable offence is justified only on recognised grounds such as misuse of liberty or prejudice to a fair trial, so cancellation solely for non-hearing of the complainant was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2020 18:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=605932" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (2) TMI 898 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286585</link>
      <description>In bailable offences, Section 436 CrPC gives an accused an absolute right to bail if willing to furnish bail or a bond on reasonable terms. The court&#039;s role is limited to verifying the bailable nature of the offence and the accused&#039;s compliance with bail conditions. The complainant has no right to be heard before grant of bail in such matters, and failure to hear the complainant does not, by itself, violate natural justice or render the bail order void. Cancellation of bail in a bailable offence is justified only on recognised grounds such as misuse of liberty or prejudice to a fair trial, so cancellation solely for non-hearing of the complainant was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286585</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>