<?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 (4) TMI 525 - THE COURT OF SESSION FOR GREATER BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768611</link>
    <description>Cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires very cogent and overwhelming circumstances and cannot be ordered mechanically. Mere silence during interrogation, where the accused has appeared for questioning, does not by itself amount to breach of bail conditions because the right to remain silent is protected by Article 20(3) of the Constitution. No other bail condition breach was established, and no new supervening circumstance justifying cancellation was shown, especially where the respondent had already remained under preventive detention for a substantial period. The application for cancellation of bail was therefore not made out.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2025 08:32:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=813246" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (4) TMI 525 - THE COURT OF SESSION FOR GREATER BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768611</link>
      <description>Cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires very cogent and overwhelming circumstances and cannot be ordered mechanically. Mere silence during interrogation, where the accused has appeared for questioning, does not by itself amount to breach of bail conditions because the right to remain silent is protected by Article 20(3) of the Constitution. No other bail condition breach was established, and no new supervening circumstance justifying cancellation was shown, especially where the respondent had already remained under preventive detention for a substantial period. The application for cancellation of bail was therefore not made out.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768611</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>