<?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 (3) TMI 1439 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305029</link>
    <description>Proceedings for provisional attachment and confirmation under the PMLA do not amount to completion of investigation for statutory bail under section 167(2) CrPC; where the complaint is filed within the prescribed period, no indefeasible right to default bail arises. Bail under the PMLA remains subject to the statutory twin conditions, and the general power under section 439 CrPC cannot operate as in an ordinary case without regard to those restrictions. On the facts, the accused had already remained in custody, the relevant material and assets were secured, and further custodial necessity was not shown, so conditional bail was warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2022 08:59:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=695474" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (3) TMI 1439 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305029</link>
      <description>Proceedings for provisional attachment and confirmation under the PMLA do not amount to completion of investigation for statutory bail under section 167(2) CrPC; where the complaint is filed within the prescribed period, no indefeasible right to default bail arises. Bail under the PMLA remains subject to the statutory twin conditions, and the general power under section 439 CrPC cannot operate as in an ordinary case without regard to those restrictions. On the facts, the accused had already remained in custody, the relevant material and assets were secured, and further custodial necessity was not shown, so conditional bail was warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305029</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>