https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311384 A petition invoking inherent jurisdiction to modify additional conditions imposed on anticipatory bail was declined because the same order was already under challenge before the Supreme Court and notice had been issued. The High Court treated the impugned order as sub judice before the apex court and held that entertaining a parallel modification request would be inappropriate. The modification petition was therefore not entertained and dismissed, with liberty to approach again after the final outcome of the SLP if occasion arose. en-us Wed, 11 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 23 Dec 2023 09:44:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311384 A petition invoking inherent jurisdiction to modify additional conditions imposed on anticipatory bail was declined because the same order was already under challenge before the Supreme Court and notice had been issued. The High Court treated the impugned order as sub judice before the apex court and held that entertaining a parallel modification request would be inappropriate. The modification petition was therefore not entertained and dismissed, with liberty to approach again after the final outcome of the SLP if occasion arose. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 11 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311384