<?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>2023 (6) TMI 503 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438929</link>
    <description>Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure confers concurrent jurisdiction on the High Court and the Court of Session for anticipatory bail, so prior approach to the Sessions Court is not mandatory. On the facts, interim pre-arrest protection was considered appropriate because the applicant was not named in the ECIR, had not yet been implicated in the scheduled offence, and there was material indicating cooperation. The note also recognises that in PMLA matters the twin conditions under Section 45 are relevant, but the material then placed did not justify denial of protection at that stage. Article 21 was treated as supporting interim liberty, subject to conditions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Jun 2023 09:11:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=716331" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (6) TMI 503 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438929</link>
      <description>Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure confers concurrent jurisdiction on the High Court and the Court of Session for anticipatory bail, so prior approach to the Sessions Court is not mandatory. On the facts, interim pre-arrest protection was considered appropriate because the applicant was not named in the ECIR, had not yet been implicated in the scheduled offence, and there was material indicating cooperation. The note also recognises that in PMLA matters the twin conditions under Section 45 are relevant, but the material then placed did not justify denial of protection at that stage. Article 21 was treated as supporting interim liberty, subject to conditions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438929</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>