<?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>2020 (1) TMI 1656 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310222</link>
    <description>The writ challenge to the FIR was not examined on merits because an efficacious alternative remedy of anticipatory bail was available under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court granted the petitioners four weeks to approach the competent court for anticipatory bail and, for that limited period, protected them from arrest in the case crime mentioned in the petition. The writ petition was thus disposed of without adjudicating the legality of the FIR.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Oct 2023 09:02:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=729025" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (1) TMI 1656 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310222</link>
      <description>The writ challenge to the FIR was not examined on merits because an efficacious alternative remedy of anticipatory bail was available under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court granted the petitioners four weeks to approach the competent court for anticipatory bail and, for that limited period, protected them from arrest in the case crime mentioned in the petition. The writ petition was thus disposed of without adjudicating the legality of the FIR.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310222</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>