<?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 (2) TMI 562 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766016</link>
    <description>Bail in a PMLA prosecution was considered in light of Section 45, Article 21, and the prospect of delay in trial. The applicant was not named in the predicate FIR or ECIR, the material against him was described as prima facie limited and largely based on co-accused statements, and he had already spent substantial time in custody while cooperating with investigation. With charges not yet framed and no near-term trial conclusion likely, continued detention was treated as inconsistent with personal liberty and speedy trial protections, and the statutory bail rigour was viewed as yielding to that constitutional concern. Bail was therefore granted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Feb 2025 08:00:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=798488" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 562 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766016</link>
      <description>Bail in a PMLA prosecution was considered in light of Section 45, Article 21, and the prospect of delay in trial. The applicant was not named in the predicate FIR or ECIR, the material against him was described as prima facie limited and largely based on co-accused statements, and he had already spent substantial time in custody while cooperating with investigation. With charges not yet framed and no near-term trial conclusion likely, continued detention was treated as inconsistent with personal liberty and speedy trial protections, and the statutory bail rigour was viewed as yielding to that constitutional concern. Bail was therefore granted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766016</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>