<?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>2005 (3) TMI 818 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297558</link>
    <description>Anticipatory bail was found unsustainable where the offence was serious, the investigation was still at a nascent stage, and the material on record, including a suicide note and surrounding circumstances, indicated prima facie complicity of the respondents. The Court held that absence of criminal antecedents and local residence were not decisive when fair investigation required custodial interrogation. It also found that the respondents breached bail conditions by failing to report to the police station and by attempting to influence prosecution witnesses, and that this independent misconduct justified cancellation of bail. The application for cancellation was accordingly allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Sep 2021 11:38:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=655391" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (3) TMI 818 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297558</link>
      <description>Anticipatory bail was found unsustainable where the offence was serious, the investigation was still at a nascent stage, and the material on record, including a suicide note and surrounding circumstances, indicated prima facie complicity of the respondents. The Court held that absence of criminal antecedents and local residence were not decisive when fair investigation required custodial interrogation. It also found that the respondents breached bail conditions by failing to report to the police station and by attempting to influence prosecution witnesses, and that this independent misconduct justified cancellation of bail. The application for cancellation was accordingly allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297558</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>