<?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>2021 (10) TMI 1430 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313067</link>
    <description>Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act applies only to offences under Chapters IV and VI, so a bail court must examine whether the charge-sheet material, taken as it stands, gives reasonable grounds to believe the accusation is prima facie true without conducting a mini trial. Sections 38 and 39 require not just association with or possession of material relating to a proscribed organisation, but prima facie material showing intention to further its activities. On the materials described, the text states that such intention was not shown; the alleged role was limited, sanction was absent for Section 20, and the bail challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2026 16:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=747814" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (10) TMI 1430 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313067</link>
      <description>Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act applies only to offences under Chapters IV and VI, so a bail court must examine whether the charge-sheet material, taken as it stands, gives reasonable grounds to believe the accusation is prima facie true without conducting a mini trial. Sections 38 and 39 require not just association with or possession of material relating to a proscribed organisation, but prima facie material showing intention to further its activities. On the materials described, the text states that such intention was not shown; the alleged role was limited, sanction was absent for Section 20, and the bail challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313067</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>