<?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 2019 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298223</link>
    <description>Anticipatory bail was confirmed where the petitioner had joined the investigation in compliance with the interim order and the State did not dispute that no further investigation was required. On that basis, the continued restraint was no longer justified, and the interim protection was made absolute on the standard conditions applicable under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Oct 2021 08:15:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=659032" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (4) TMI 2019 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298223</link>
      <description>Anticipatory bail was confirmed where the petitioner had joined the investigation in compliance with the interim order and the State did not dispute that no further investigation was required. On that basis, the continued restraint was no longer justified, and the interim protection was made absolute on the standard conditions applicable under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298223</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>