https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457617 Bail was granted under Section 437(6) CrPC where the accused remained in custody for a substantial period after the first date fixed for evidence, the trial had not concluded, and the offences were triable by a Magistrate. The Court found no real apprehension of tampering with evidence or prejudice to the prosecution, noting that trial had commenced and the principal witnesses were Court staff and officials. Remand to the Magistrate was refused because the earlier bail application had already been rejected by the HC and no useful purpose would be served by sending the matter back for reconsideration. en-us Tue, 05 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Sep 2024 18:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457617 Bail was granted under Section 437(6) CrPC where the accused remained in custody for a substantial period after the first date fixed for evidence, the trial had not concluded, and the offences were triable by a Magistrate. The Court found no real apprehension of tampering with evidence or prejudice to the prosecution, noting that trial had commenced and the principal witnesses were Court staff and officials. Remand to the Magistrate was refused because the earlier bail application had already been rejected by the HC and no useful purpose would be served by sending the matter back for reconsideration. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 05 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457617