<?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>2024 (2) TMI 89 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448938</link>
    <description>Regular bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was considered on the statutory twin conditions, with the medical-ground plea not pressed and the objection regarding written grounds of arrest rejected. The Court found no prima facie material linking the petitioner to the forged foundational deed for the Cheshire Home Road property, treated the purchase through banking channels and lack of mens rea material as consistent with bona fide purchase, and noted that no scheduled offence was shown in relation to the Pugru Mauza and Siram Mauza properties. It also relied on custody period, trial stage, voluminous evidence, and absence of flight risk, witness tampering, or likely reoffending to conclude that the bail conditions were satisfied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Feb 2024 14:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=742177" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (2) TMI 89 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448938</link>
      <description>Regular bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was considered on the statutory twin conditions, with the medical-ground plea not pressed and the objection regarding written grounds of arrest rejected. The Court found no prima facie material linking the petitioner to the forged foundational deed for the Cheshire Home Road property, treated the purchase through banking channels and lack of mens rea material as consistent with bona fide purchase, and noted that no scheduled offence was shown in relation to the Pugru Mauza and Siram Mauza properties. It also relied on custody period, trial stage, voluminous evidence, and absence of flight risk, witness tampering, or likely reoffending to conclude that the bail conditions were satisfied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448938</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>