<?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 (1) TMI 1534 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298824</link>
    <description>A person released on interim bail under judicial order, subject to conditions and sureties, remains in constructive custody for purposes of regular bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Bail operates through court control rather than physical confinement, so the accused continues to be within the court&#039;s jurisdiction while the bond and conditions subsist. Expiry of the interim-bail period does not by itself defeat a pending regular bail application, especially where the application was not finally decided and later hearings were adjourned. Authorities on custody were distinguished on their facts, and the principle that submission to court control satisfies custody was applied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 21 Nov 2021 19:20:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=661707" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (1) TMI 1534 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298824</link>
      <description>A person released on interim bail under judicial order, subject to conditions and sureties, remains in constructive custody for purposes of regular bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Bail operates through court control rather than physical confinement, so the accused continues to be within the court&#039;s jurisdiction while the bond and conditions subsist. Expiry of the interim-bail period does not by itself defeat a pending regular bail application, especially where the application was not finally decided and later hearings were adjourned. Authorities on custody were distinguished on their facts, and the principle that submission to court control satisfies custody was applied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298824</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>