<?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>2000 (4) TMI 852 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308627</link>
    <description>Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure bars police custody beyond the initial 15 days after arrest. The SC held that once that period has expired, the remand cannot be reopened by directing further police custody, even if later-discovered offences arise from the same transaction. An order authorising additional police remand after expiry of the first 15-day window was therefore inconsistent with the statutory limitation and was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Jul 2023 11:24:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=719099" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (4) TMI 852 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308627</link>
      <description>Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure bars police custody beyond the initial 15 days after arrest. The SC held that once that period has expired, the remand cannot be reopened by directing further police custody, even if later-discovered offences arise from the same transaction. An order authorising additional police remand after expiry of the first 15-day window was therefore inconsistent with the statutory limitation and was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308627</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>