<?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 (3) TMI 510 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767124</link>
    <description>Regular bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was refused because the Court found substantial prima facie material linking the applicant to the alleged laundering activity. The Enforcement Directorate&#039;s record, including statements, digital evidence and fund-flow material, indicated involvement in the liquor syndicate and alleged proceeds of crime, and the grounds of arrest had been given in writing. Although the applicant had been in custody for a significant period and the trial was unlikely to conclude soon, those factors did not outweigh the rigour of the statutory bail conditions. On that assessment, the applicant failed to satisfy the twin conditions for bail under Section 45 and the prayer was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2025 08:33:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=805586" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 510 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767124</link>
      <description>Regular bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was refused because the Court found substantial prima facie material linking the applicant to the alleged laundering activity. The Enforcement Directorate&#039;s record, including statements, digital evidence and fund-flow material, indicated involvement in the liquor syndicate and alleged proceeds of crime, and the grounds of arrest had been given in writing. Although the applicant had been in custody for a significant period and the trial was unlikely to conclude soon, those factors did not outweigh the rigour of the statutory bail conditions. On that assessment, the applicant failed to satisfy the twin conditions for bail under Section 45 and the prayer was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767124</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>