<?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>2020 (8) TMI 229 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397286</link>
    <description>The Delhi High Court upheld the High Powered Committee&#039;s COVID-19 prison-release policy excluding persons facing economic offence, PMLA and specialised-agency cases from interim bail or parole consideration. The Court treated the exclusion as a class-based decision made on objective factors such as the nature and severity of the offence, not as an unconstitutional deprivation of liberty. It held that the Committee&#039;s minutes did not override the Code of Criminal Procedure, because regular or interim bail remedies before the competent court remained available on merits. The challenge under Articles 14 and 21 therefore failed, and the prayer to quash the minutes was declined.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2020 22:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=619585" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (8) TMI 229 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397286</link>
      <description>The Delhi High Court upheld the High Powered Committee&#039;s COVID-19 prison-release policy excluding persons facing economic offence, PMLA and specialised-agency cases from interim bail or parole consideration. The Court treated the exclusion as a class-based decision made on objective factors such as the nature and severity of the offence, not as an unconstitutional deprivation of liberty. It held that the Committee&#039;s minutes did not override the Code of Criminal Procedure, because regular or interim bail remedies before the competent court remained available on merits. The challenge under Articles 14 and 21 therefore failed, and the prayer to quash the minutes was declined.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397286</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>