<?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 (7) TMI 196 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424641</link>
    <description>Regular bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was granted because the statutory conditions were found satisfied. The Court noted that the petitioner was not named in the predicate FIR or the police report under Section 173(2) CrPC, the investigation was complete and the complaint had already been filed, and further custodial interrogation was not necessary. The material suggested only assistance to the lease holder in mining-related work, without a direct allegation of handling the finances of the scheduled offence. The Court also considered the petitioner&#039;s five months in custody, the availability of documents with the investigating agency, likely delay in trial, and heart-related medical treatment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Jul 2022 08:12:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=684089" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (7) TMI 196 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424641</link>
      <description>Regular bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was granted because the statutory conditions were found satisfied. The Court noted that the petitioner was not named in the predicate FIR or the police report under Section 173(2) CrPC, the investigation was complete and the complaint had already been filed, and further custodial interrogation was not necessary. The material suggested only assistance to the lease holder in mining-related work, without a direct allegation of handling the finances of the scheduled offence. The Court also considered the petitioner&#039;s five months in custody, the availability of documents with the investigating agency, likely delay in trial, and heart-related medical treatment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424641</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>