<?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 (8) TMI 650 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756946</link>
    <description>Prolonged undertrial incarceration and inordinate delay in framing charges can infringe the Article 21 right to speedy trial, making continued detention unjustified and supporting bail. The text further states that statutory restrictions in special-law prosecutions, including the NIA Act and the UAPA bail regime, do not completely exclude constitutional power to grant bail where the trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time. The expeditious trial mandate under the NIA Act reinforces this concern. On these principles, bail was granted because prolonged custody had become oppressive and the special statutory regime did not justify continued detention.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2026 15:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=763876" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (8) TMI 650 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756946</link>
      <description>Prolonged undertrial incarceration and inordinate delay in framing charges can infringe the Article 21 right to speedy trial, making continued detention unjustified and supporting bail. The text further states that statutory restrictions in special-law prosecutions, including the NIA Act and the UAPA bail regime, do not completely exclude constitutional power to grant bail where the trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time. The expeditious trial mandate under the NIA Act reinforces this concern. On these principles, bail was granted because prolonged custody had become oppressive and the special statutory regime did not justify continued detention.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756946</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>