https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308081 A person unconnected with the FIR and not a party to the criminal proceedings lacked locus standi to challenge extension of transit anticipatory bail, so the challenge was not entertained. Where quashing proceedings were already pending before the High Court and the merits and territorial jurisdiction were under consideration, the Supreme Court declined to interfere and left the matter for expeditious decision by that court, while protecting the petitioners from coercive action in the meantime. A writ under Article 32 to quash the FIR was also not entertained because an efficacious remedy before the High Court was available; the petitioners were left to pursue that remedy with interim protection. en-us Fri, 24 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 May 2023 09:01:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308081 A person unconnected with the FIR and not a party to the criminal proceedings lacked locus standi to challenge extension of transit anticipatory bail, so the challenge was not entertained. Where quashing proceedings were already pending before the High Court and the merits and territorial jurisdiction were under consideration, the Supreme Court declined to interfere and left the matter for expeditious decision by that court, while protecting the petitioners from coercive action in the meantime. A writ under Article 32 to quash the FIR was also not entertained because an efficacious remedy before the High Court was available; the petitioners were left to pursue that remedy with interim protection. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Fri, 24 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308081