<?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>1998 (3) TMI 717 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457306</link>
    <description>Anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code was considered in light of the need for custodial interrogation and the risk of interference with investigation. The Court noted that detention may be justified where effective investigation could be impeded or evidence tampered with. On the facts presented, it found no good reason to disturb the High Court&#039;s refusal of bail at that stage, and anticipatory bail was not granted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Sep 2024 11:24:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=768333" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (3) TMI 717 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457306</link>
      <description>Anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code was considered in light of the need for custodial interrogation and the risk of interference with investigation. The Court noted that detention may be justified where effective investigation could be impeded or evidence tampered with. On the facts presented, it found no good reason to disturb the High Court&#039;s refusal of bail at that stage, and anticipatory bail was not granted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457306</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>