<?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>1996 (10) TMI 519 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295084</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court held that the High Court should have stayed proceedings pending a decision on the requirement of sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Emphasizing the limited duration of anticipatory bail, the Court highlighted the need for regular court involvement in bail decisions. Anticipatory bail does not extend until the trial&#039;s conclusion but should be of a restricted timeframe based on case circumstances.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sun, 13 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 May 2021 16:57:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=644559" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (10) TMI 519 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295084</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court held that the High Court should have stayed proceedings pending a decision on the requirement of sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Emphasizing the limited duration of anticipatory bail, the Court highlighted the need for regular court involvement in bail decisions. Anticipatory bail does not extend until the trial&#039;s conclusion but should be of a restricted timeframe based on case circumstances.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Sun, 13 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295084</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>