<?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 (4) TMI 1226 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308647</link>
    <description>A valid police custody remand that has attained finality may be enforced for the remaining period where full execution is frustrated by the accused&#039;s hospitalisation and subsequent interim bail, especially when cancellation of bail rests on non-cooperation and misuse of liberty. The Court held that denying the unused portion of custody would reward frustration of the investigative process, so the accused could not resist the remaining remand. Pendency of separate proceedings concerning co-accused did not bar custody, because those matters were distinct and did not affect the independent question arising from the accused&#039;s own conduct. The remaining police custody remand was therefore permitted for the limited period directed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Jul 2023 20:41:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=719130" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (4) TMI 1226 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308647</link>
      <description>A valid police custody remand that has attained finality may be enforced for the remaining period where full execution is frustrated by the accused&#039;s hospitalisation and subsequent interim bail, especially when cancellation of bail rests on non-cooperation and misuse of liberty. The Court held that denying the unused portion of custody would reward frustration of the investigative process, so the accused could not resist the remaining remand. Pendency of separate proceedings concerning co-accused did not bar custody, because those matters were distinct and did not affect the independent question arising from the accused&#039;s own conduct. The remaining police custody remand was therefore permitted for the limited period directed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308647</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>