<?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>2025 (1) TMI 849 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764785</link>
    <description>Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, prolonged pre-trial custody and general delay in trial do not by themselves justify bail where the statutory rigour of Section 45 continues to apply. The text states that serious allegations of laundering proceeds of crime, substantial progress in investigation, and filing of the prosecution complaint weighed against release. It also notes that the twin bail conditions were not met because material collected in investigation, including statements, documents and the alleged money trail, indicated a key role in the offence and the Section 24 presumption operated against the applicant. Medical and parity-based pleas were also treated as insufficient where treatment could be provided in custody.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Jan 2025 17:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=789956" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (1) TMI 849 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764785</link>
      <description>Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, prolonged pre-trial custody and general delay in trial do not by themselves justify bail where the statutory rigour of Section 45 continues to apply. The text states that serious allegations of laundering proceeds of crime, substantial progress in investigation, and filing of the prosecution complaint weighed against release. It also notes that the twin bail conditions were not met because material collected in investigation, including statements, documents and the alleged money trail, indicated a key role in the offence and the Section 24 presumption operated against the applicant. Medical and parity-based pleas were also treated as insufficient where treatment could be provided in custody.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764785</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>