<?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 775 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757071</link>
    <description>At the Section 43D(5) UAPA bail stage, the charge-sheet material must be considered as a whole, without a mini-trial, and detention cannot rest on distorted or insufficient evidence. The Court noted that allegations about premises being let out for objectionable activities, items being moved before a raid, and a witness statement linking the appellant to a meeting did not, on the record, establish participation in unlawful activity, conspiracy for a terrorist act, organising terrorist camps, or membership of a terrorist organisation. It was therefore not shown that the appellant knowingly facilitated terrorist activity merely by letting out the premises, and the refusal of bail was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Aug 2024 12:54:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=764179" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (8) TMI 775 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757071</link>
      <description>At the Section 43D(5) UAPA bail stage, the charge-sheet material must be considered as a whole, without a mini-trial, and detention cannot rest on distorted or insufficient evidence. The Court noted that allegations about premises being let out for objectionable activities, items being moved before a raid, and a witness statement linking the appellant to a meeting did not, on the record, establish participation in unlawful activity, conspiracy for a terrorist act, organising terrorist camps, or membership of a terrorist organisation. It was therefore not shown that the appellant knowingly facilitated terrorist activity merely by letting out the premises, and the refusal of bail was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757071</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>