<?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 (10) TMI 49 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428491</link>
    <description>A charge-sheet filed within the statutory period does not defeat default bail unless it completes investigation of the entire FIR and all connected offences. A piece-meal report covering only part of the allegations cannot be treated as full compliance with Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and further investigation cannot be used to fragment one FIR into multiple reports to bypass the right to statutory bail. The incomplete charge-sheet did not alter the consequence of non-completion of investigation, and the absence of sanction or cognizance did not change the result. The applicant was therefore entitled to default bail.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Oct 2022 08:55:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=692414" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (10) TMI 49 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428491</link>
      <description>A charge-sheet filed within the statutory period does not defeat default bail unless it completes investigation of the entire FIR and all connected offences. A piece-meal report covering only part of the allegations cannot be treated as full compliance with Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and further investigation cannot be used to fragment one FIR into multiple reports to bypass the right to statutory bail. The incomplete charge-sheet did not alter the consequence of non-completion of investigation, and the absence of sanction or cognizance did not change the result. The applicant was therefore entitled to default bail.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428491</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>