<?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>2019 (11) TMI 1507 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291480</link>
    <description>The indefeasible right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure survives only until the prosecution files the complaint or charge-sheet, and it is lost if the filing occurs before the accused has effectively availed of that right. Here, the accused moved for bail on the 181st day, but an additional complaint with further materials and investigation details had already been filed the same day before the application was taken up. The court held that the timing of court hours could not give the bail application priority over the filing, so the default-bail right had not crystallised. Bail granted on that basis was therefore liable to cancellation under Section 439(2).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2020 19:45:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=627557" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (11) TMI 1507 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291480</link>
      <description>The indefeasible right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure survives only until the prosecution files the complaint or charge-sheet, and it is lost if the filing occurs before the accused has effectively availed of that right. Here, the accused moved for bail on the 181st day, but an additional complaint with further materials and investigation details had already been filed the same day before the application was taken up. The court held that the timing of court hours could not give the bail application priority over the filing, so the default-bail right had not crystallised. Bail granted on that basis was therefore liable to cancellation under Section 439(2).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291480</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>