<?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>2015 (3) TMI 1440 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457290</link>
    <description>Concurrent jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code means a pending bail application before the High Court does not become non-maintainable merely because a charge-sheet is filed during its pendency; the Court may consider the charge-sheet and accompanying materials while deciding bail. On merits, bail was refused because prima facie material linked the accused to the affairs of the group and to transfers into her personal account, the asserted use of funds was unsupported, parity did not apply because the co-accused stood on a different footing, and the seriousness of the alleged economic offence and continuing investigation outweighed reliance on gender-based grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 15 Sep 2024 01:19:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=768220" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (3) TMI 1440 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457290</link>
      <description>Concurrent jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code means a pending bail application before the High Court does not become non-maintainable merely because a charge-sheet is filed during its pendency; the Court may consider the charge-sheet and accompanying materials while deciding bail. On merits, bail was refused because prima facie material linked the accused to the affairs of the group and to transfers into her personal account, the asserted use of funds was unsupported, parity did not apply because the co-accused stood on a different footing, and the seriousness of the alleged economic offence and continuing investigation outweighed reliance on gender-based grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457290</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>