<?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 1088 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449937</link>
    <description>In a PMLA bail context, the court&#039;s analysis turned on whether the alleged scheduled offences, prima facie recovery material, and the tracing of proceeds of crime satisfied the stringent conditions for bail. It treated the IPC offences as scheduled offences, considered the allegations of stealing and selling REET question papers, and held that disputed claims over the nature of recoveries were matters for trial. Applying the reverse burden under Section 24 and the twin requirements under Section 45(1), it found no reasonable grounds to believe the accused was not guilty, and held the proviso for cases below one crore rupees inapplicable because the alleged proceeds exceeded that threshold.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Feb 2024 08:22:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=744571" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (2) TMI 1088 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449937</link>
      <description>In a PMLA bail context, the court&#039;s analysis turned on whether the alleged scheduled offences, prima facie recovery material, and the tracing of proceeds of crime satisfied the stringent conditions for bail. It treated the IPC offences as scheduled offences, considered the allegations of stealing and selling REET question papers, and held that disputed claims over the nature of recoveries were matters for trial. Applying the reverse burden under Section 24 and the twin requirements under Section 45(1), it found no reasonable grounds to believe the accused was not guilty, and held the proviso for cases below one crore rupees inapplicable because the alleged proceeds exceeded that threshold.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449937</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>