<?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 (6) TMI 743 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294161</link>
    <description>Transit bail was described as a judge-made, time-limited protection intended to let an accused approach the court with territorial jurisdiction for anticipatory bail or bail. The article states that it has no statutory sanction under the Code of Criminal Procedure and was historically justified by practical difficulties in communication, travel, and access to counsel. Given modern electronic communication, document transmission, online payments, and video conferencing, the Court treated that practical necessity as absent in the circumstances considered. The applicant was directed to seek relief before the competent court in the State where the FIR was registered, and the transit bail application was rejected as not maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Mar 2021 09:10:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=639725" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (6) TMI 743 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294161</link>
      <description>Transit bail was described as a judge-made, time-limited protection intended to let an accused approach the court with territorial jurisdiction for anticipatory bail or bail. The article states that it has no statutory sanction under the Code of Criminal Procedure and was historically justified by practical difficulties in communication, travel, and access to counsel. Given modern electronic communication, document transmission, online payments, and video conferencing, the Court treated that practical necessity as absent in the circumstances considered. The applicant was directed to seek relief before the competent court in the State where the FIR was registered, and the transit bail application was rejected as not maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294161</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>