<?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>2022 (5) TMI 1212 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422952</link>
    <description>Anticipatory bail was refused to an accused director in a multi-victim cheating and breach of trust case because the allegations showed a prima facie material role in the corporate and financial dealings. The Court noted his status as a director and signatory to resolutions, his alleged participation in obtaining loans for the project, and the need to trace the money trail and recover records to unearth the conspiracy. A verified medical condition was noted, but it did not outweigh the gravity of the economic offence and the need for custodial interrogation. The decision treats active involvement in alleged diversion of funds as sufficient to deny pre-arrest protection where investigation requires deeper scrutiny.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 May 2022 11:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=680213" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (5) TMI 1212 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422952</link>
      <description>Anticipatory bail was refused to an accused director in a multi-victim cheating and breach of trust case because the allegations showed a prima facie material role in the corporate and financial dealings. The Court noted his status as a director and signatory to resolutions, his alleged participation in obtaining loans for the project, and the need to trace the money trail and recover records to unearth the conspiracy. A verified medical condition was noted, but it did not outweigh the gravity of the economic offence and the need for custodial interrogation. The decision treats active involvement in alleged diversion of funds as sufficient to deny pre-arrest protection where investigation requires deeper scrutiny.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422952</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>