<?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 (5) TMI 1542 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307786</link>
    <description>Regular bail was granted where investigation was substantially complete, the chargesheet and supplementary chargesheets had been filed, and the evidence was largely documentary. The Court found no material showing a risk of absconding, witness influence, or tampering with evidence, and no demonstrated custodial necessity. It also relied on the fact that similarly placed co-accused had already been granted bail and those orders had not been disturbed by the Supreme Court. Balancing the seriousness of the allegations against personal liberty and the presumption of innocence, the Court held that continued custody was unwarranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 07 May 2023 09:23:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=712925" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (5) TMI 1542 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307786</link>
      <description>Regular bail was granted where investigation was substantially complete, the chargesheet and supplementary chargesheets had been filed, and the evidence was largely documentary. The Court found no material showing a risk of absconding, witness influence, or tampering with evidence, and no demonstrated custodial necessity. It also relied on the fact that similarly placed co-accused had already been granted bail and those orders had not been disturbed by the Supreme Court. Balancing the seriousness of the allegations against personal liberty and the presumption of innocence, the Court held that continued custody was unwarranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307786</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>