<?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>2022 (12) TMI 1536 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457341</link>
    <description>Anticipatory bail was declined where the applicant was stated to be absconding and the investigation concerned a serious cyber-cheating and extortion racket run through an illegal call centre. The Court accepted the prosecution&#039;s case that telecallers identified the applicant and his brother as controlling the operation, incriminating material had been seized, and warrants had already been issued. It further found custodial interrogation necessary to trace the financial trail and examine alleged bitcoin-linked transactions. The argument that arrest in offences punishable up to seven years must still satisfy statutory safeguards was not enough on these facts, and relief was refused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Sep 2024 20:36:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=768636" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (12) TMI 1536 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457341</link>
      <description>Anticipatory bail was declined where the applicant was stated to be absconding and the investigation concerned a serious cyber-cheating and extortion racket run through an illegal call centre. The Court accepted the prosecution&#039;s case that telecallers identified the applicant and his brother as controlling the operation, incriminating material had been seized, and warrants had already been issued. It further found custodial interrogation necessary to trace the financial trail and examine alleged bitcoin-linked transactions. The argument that arrest in offences punishable up to seven years must still satisfy statutory safeguards was not enough on these facts, and relief was refused.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457341</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>