<?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 (11) TMI 1193 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314048</link>
    <description>Anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was granted after the Court considered the nature of the allegations, the role attributed to the applicant, the absence of antecedents, the payment already made, and whether custodial interrogation was necessary. Applying settled principles governing anticipatory bail, the Court found that custodial interrogation had not been shown to be required. On that basis, the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 May 2024 19:14:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=753108" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (11) TMI 1193 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314048</link>
      <description>Anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was granted after the Court considered the nature of the allegations, the role attributed to the applicant, the absence of antecedents, the payment already made, and whether custodial interrogation was necessary. Applying settled principles governing anticipatory bail, the Court found that custodial interrogation had not been shown to be required. On that basis, the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314048</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>