<?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 (10) TMI 44 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399070</link>
    <description>Anticipatory bail in a GST evasion and bribery racket was refused because the investigation disclosed a wider conspiracy involving transporters, passers and departmental officials, and call transcripts and recorded conversations indicated prima facie involvement. The Court held that, at the pre-arrest bail stage, it was not proper to assess whether the material was sufficient for conviction. Retirement from service, a past service record, and the absence of the petitioner&#039;s own recorded calls did not outweigh the need for custodial interrogation, especially where the investigation was continuing and there was a risk of witness influence or tampering with evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Mar 2025 14:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=623841" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (10) TMI 44 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399070</link>
      <description>Anticipatory bail in a GST evasion and bribery racket was refused because the investigation disclosed a wider conspiracy involving transporters, passers and departmental officials, and call transcripts and recorded conversations indicated prima facie involvement. The Court held that, at the pre-arrest bail stage, it was not proper to assess whether the material was sufficient for conviction. Retirement from service, a past service record, and the absence of the petitioner&#039;s own recorded calls did not outweigh the need for custodial interrogation, especially where the investigation was continuing and there was a risk of witness influence or tampering with evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399070</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>