<?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 (4) TMI 1973 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294823</link>
    <description>Bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was considered in light of Section 45(1) and the constitutional position explained in prior case law. The Court noted that the accused had already spent time in custody in the predicate offences and that the charge sheet in the PMLA case had been filed; on those facts, it found bail to be warranted. The petitioner was held entitled to bail, subject to conditions imposed by the Court.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 May 2021 19:43:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=643473" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (4) TMI 1973 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294823</link>
      <description>Bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was considered in light of Section 45(1) and the constitutional position explained in prior case law. The Court noted that the accused had already spent time in custody in the predicate offences and that the charge sheet in the PMLA case had been filed; on those facts, it found bail to be warranted. The petitioner was held entitled to bail, subject to conditions imposed by the Court.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294823</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>