<?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 (9) TMI 234 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757990</link>
    <description>Statutory default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 accrues when the investigating agency fails to file the complaint within the prescribed period, and the accused has completed the custody period required by law. The text states that an earlier cancellation of a bail order does not by itself extinguish that beneficial right, so long as the statutory conditions for release continue to exist and the complaint remains unfiled. On that basis, continued detention was treated as unjustified, and the petition for statutory bail was rejected only because the Court found the statutory requirements were not otherwise satisfied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 May 2025 20:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=766680" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (9) TMI 234 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757990</link>
      <description>Statutory default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 accrues when the investigating agency fails to file the complaint within the prescribed period, and the accused has completed the custody period required by law. The text states that an earlier cancellation of a bail order does not by itself extinguish that beneficial right, so long as the statutory conditions for release continue to exist and the complaint remains unfiled. On that basis, continued detention was treated as unjustified, and the petition for statutory bail was rejected only because the Court found the statutory requirements were not otherwise satisfied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757990</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>