<?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 344 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397401</link>
    <description>Concurrent jurisdiction exists for applications under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, so an accused may move the High Court directly without first approaching the Court of Session. The twin conditions in Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act govern post-arrest bail and do not apply to anticipatory bail, while Section 24 does not bar pre-arrest protection at that stage. On the facts, the age of the alleged offence, filing of the charge-sheet, absence of recovery, prior cooperation, lack of witness-tampering allegations, and an unexplained need for custodial interrogation justified grant of anticipatory bail. Protection against arrest was granted subject to conditions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2025 18:34:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=619878" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (8) TMI 344 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397401</link>
      <description>Concurrent jurisdiction exists for applications under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, so an accused may move the High Court directly without first approaching the Court of Session. The twin conditions in Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act govern post-arrest bail and do not apply to anticipatory bail, while Section 24 does not bar pre-arrest protection at that stage. On the facts, the age of the alleged offence, filing of the charge-sheet, absence of recovery, prior cooperation, lack of witness-tampering allegations, and an unexplained need for custodial interrogation justified grant of anticipatory bail. Protection against arrest was granted subject to conditions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397401</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>