<?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>2017 (8) TMI 1691 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305824</link>
    <description>An application for dispensation of personal appearance under Section 205 CrPC must be decided by a reasoned exercise of judicial discretion on the relevant facts, including the accused&#039;s circumstances and whether personal attendance is necessary in the interests of justice. The court below failed to meaningfully consider the material placed before it, including the asserted need for travel and serious illness, and relied mainly on earlier coercive steps and the pre-quashment stage. The refusal of exemption was therefore unsustainable, and the consequential coercive order based solely on that refusal was also quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Dec 2022 06:28:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=699857" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 1691 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305824</link>
      <description>An application for dispensation of personal appearance under Section 205 CrPC must be decided by a reasoned exercise of judicial discretion on the relevant facts, including the accused&#039;s circumstances and whether personal attendance is necessary in the interests of justice. The court below failed to meaningfully consider the material placed before it, including the asserted need for travel and serious illness, and relied mainly on earlier coercive steps and the pre-quashment stage. The refusal of exemption was therefore unsustainable, and the consequential coercive order based solely on that refusal was also quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305824</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>