<?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>1988 (11) TMI 111 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42431</link>
    <description>Bail in an alleged Gold (Control) law matter involving forged vouchers and related economic offences was granted because the investigation could proceed on the basis of documents already seized, and continued custody was not shown to be necessary. The Court treated concerns about further investigation, tampering with evidence, and absconding as speculative, noting that the Department had time to examine the registers and vouchers and could continue inquiry without detention. It also emphasised that fair play required the petitioners to be given an opportunity to explain the genuineness of the transactions. Strict conditions, including appearance before the Gold Control Officer, restriction on travel, and surety, were imposed to safeguard the investigation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Nov 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Jun 2010 12:03:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80960" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (11) TMI 111 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42431</link>
      <description>Bail in an alleged Gold (Control) law matter involving forged vouchers and related economic offences was granted because the investigation could proceed on the basis of documents already seized, and continued custody was not shown to be necessary. The Court treated concerns about further investigation, tampering with evidence, and absconding as speculative, noting that the Department had time to examine the registers and vouchers and could continue inquiry without detention. It also emphasised that fair play required the petitioners to be given an opportunity to explain the genuineness of the transactions. Strict conditions, including appearance before the Gold Control Officer, restriction on travel, and surety, were imposed to safeguard the investigation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Nov 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42431</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>