<?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>2021 (2) TMI 1108 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404616</link>
    <description>The HC denied anticipatory bail to the petitioners involved in tax evasion, bribery, and corruption under IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018. The court emphasized the seriousness of the allegations, the necessity of custodial interrogation, and the ongoing investigation&#039;s importance in revealing the extent of the conspiracy. The decision highlighted the need for a thorough investigation to establish complicity and stressed that observations were limited to the bail application, not indicative of case merits. The court referenced precedents and statutory provisions, particularly Section 17A, underscoring the requirement for prior approval in specific investigations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Oct 2024 12:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=637516" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (2) TMI 1108 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404616</link>
      <description>The HC denied anticipatory bail to the petitioners involved in tax evasion, bribery, and corruption under IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018. The court emphasized the seriousness of the allegations, the necessity of custodial interrogation, and the ongoing investigation&#039;s importance in revealing the extent of the conspiracy. The decision highlighted the need for a thorough investigation to establish complicity and stressed that observations were limited to the bail application, not indicative of case merits. The court referenced precedents and statutory provisions, particularly Section 17A, underscoring the requirement for prior approval in specific investigations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404616</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>