<?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>2018 (3) TMI 2005 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309627</link>
    <description>Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was held not to create an absolute bar to anticipatory bail: where a prima facie examination shows no offence, or the complaint appears false, mala fide, or motivated, the bar does not operate. The Court further stated that constitutional protections require safeguards against false implication and unnecessary arrest, including preliminary inquiry and prior approval before arrest in specified cases, with reasons subject to judicial scrutiny. On the facts, the complaint was found to stem from bona fide official action and the proceedings were treated as an abuse of process, so they were quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Sep 2023 18:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=725925" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (3) TMI 2005 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309627</link>
      <description>Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was held not to create an absolute bar to anticipatory bail: where a prima facie examination shows no offence, or the complaint appears false, mala fide, or motivated, the bar does not operate. The Court further stated that constitutional protections require safeguards against false implication and unnecessary arrest, including preliminary inquiry and prior approval before arrest in specified cases, with reasons subject to judicial scrutiny. On the facts, the complaint was found to stem from bona fide official action and the proceedings were treated as an abuse of process, so they were quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309627</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>