<?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>2005 (7) TMI 734 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457275</link>
    <description>Anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was found appropriate on the facts presented. The Court noted that the allegations against the appellant were similar to those against other accused persons who had already been granted anticipatory bail, and treated that parity as a material consideration. Bail was directed in the event of arrest or surrender, subject to the usual statutory conditions governing anticipatory bail.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Sep 2024 15:14:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=767989" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (7) TMI 734 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457275</link>
      <description>Anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was found appropriate on the facts presented. The Court noted that the allegations against the appellant were similar to those against other accused persons who had already been granted anticipatory bail, and treated that parity as a material consideration. Bail was directed in the event of arrest or surrender, subject to the usual statutory conditions governing anticipatory bail.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457275</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>