<?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>1992 (5) TMI 202 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306769</link>
    <description>Specific allegations of misappropriation were treated as sufficient cognizable material, so the FIR and investigation were not to be quashed merely because the report was allegedly lodged at the instance of a Sub-Divisional Magistrate without prior inquiry. The commentary also notes that writ jurisdiction cannot be used to compel a criminal court to bypass the Code of Criminal Procedure on bail: a High Court cannot require same-day disposal of a bail application, direct release on personal bond pending consideration, or prohibit arrest before the application is decided, because such directions would cut across the statutory scheme for notice, judicial discretion, and bail procedure.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 May 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2023 15:50:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=705567" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (5) TMI 202 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306769</link>
      <description>Specific allegations of misappropriation were treated as sufficient cognizable material, so the FIR and investigation were not to be quashed merely because the report was allegedly lodged at the instance of a Sub-Divisional Magistrate without prior inquiry. The commentary also notes that writ jurisdiction cannot be used to compel a criminal court to bypass the Code of Criminal Procedure on bail: a High Court cannot require same-day disposal of a bail application, direct release on personal bond pending consideration, or prohibit arrest before the application is decided, because such directions would cut across the statutory scheme for notice, judicial discretion, and bail procedure.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 May 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306769</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>