<?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>2008 (9) TMI 1041 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457268</link>
    <description>Prolonged undertrial incarceration may justify limited protective relief in exceptional circumstances, and Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure reflects the legislative concern against excessive pre-trial detention. On the facts, the Court granted bail-related safeguards to an undertrial who had remained in custody for more than ten years, including release on bond, surrender of passport, and other conditions protecting presence and liberty. A court cannot direct consolidation of independent criminal cases pending in different courts by judicial order where that would conflict with the procedural scheme of the Code. The request for consolidation was therefore declined.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Jan 2026 15:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=767935" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (9) TMI 1041 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457268</link>
      <description>Prolonged undertrial incarceration may justify limited protective relief in exceptional circumstances, and Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure reflects the legislative concern against excessive pre-trial detention. On the facts, the Court granted bail-related safeguards to an undertrial who had remained in custody for more than ten years, including release on bond, surrender of passport, and other conditions protecting presence and liberty. A court cannot direct consolidation of independent criminal cases pending in different courts by judicial order where that would conflict with the procedural scheme of the Code. The request for consolidation was therefore declined.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457268</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>