https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312837 Bail could not be cancelled merely because disclosures were made and custodial interrogation was considered necessary for recovery of articles, in the absence of misuse of bail, interference with investigation, tampering with evidence, threats to witnesses, or absconding; the cancellation order was set aside and bail restored. Police custody under Section 167(1) CrPC could be authorised only within the first fifteen days after arrest and production before the Magistrate; a remand beyond that statutory window was impermissible. The High Court's order directing re-arrest was therefore set aside. en-us Wed, 05 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Mar 2024 16:38:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312837 Bail could not be cancelled merely because disclosures were made and custodial interrogation was considered necessary for recovery of articles, in the absence of misuse of bail, interference with investigation, tampering with evidence, threats to witnesses, or absconding; the cancellation order was set aside and bail restored. Police custody under Section 167(1) CrPC could be authorised only within the first fifteen days after arrest and production before the Magistrate; a remand beyond that statutory window was impermissible. The High Court's order directing re-arrest was therefore set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 05 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312837