<?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>2013 (12) TMI 1759 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459891</link>
    <description>Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC is intended for exceptional cases where the applicant shows a genuine apprehension of arrest on reasonable grounds. A person who is absconding or has been declared a proclaimed offender under Section 82 CrPC is ordinarily not entitled to that relief, particularly where serious offences are alleged and the accused has not cooperated with investigation. The materials noted issuance of warrants, drawing of proclamation, and lack of cooperation, which weighed against grant of anticipatory bail. The stated conclusion is that anticipatory bail was wrongly granted in such circumstances and the accused were not entitled to the protection sought.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Jan 2025 12:25:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=785777" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (12) TMI 1759 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459891</link>
      <description>Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC is intended for exceptional cases where the applicant shows a genuine apprehension of arrest on reasonable grounds. A person who is absconding or has been declared a proclaimed offender under Section 82 CrPC is ordinarily not entitled to that relief, particularly where serious offences are alleged and the accused has not cooperated with investigation. The materials noted issuance of warrants, drawing of proclamation, and lack of cooperation, which weighed against grant of anticipatory bail. The stated conclusion is that anticipatory bail was wrongly granted in such circumstances and the accused were not entitled to the protection sought.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459891</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>