<?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 (5) TMI 1290 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771018</link>
    <description>Bail interference was found unjustified where the only recovery was 3 kg of smuggled gold and the larger alleged quantity appeared only in the respondents&#039; statements. The bail order was made on the overall facts, and the reference to the offence being bailable was merely incidental. No subsequent circumstance was shown to warrant reconsideration of bail already granted, so the challenge to the bail order failed and the bail order was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 May 2025 08:53:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=822905" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 1290 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771018</link>
      <description>Bail interference was found unjustified where the only recovery was 3 kg of smuggled gold and the larger alleged quantity appeared only in the respondents&#039; statements. The bail order was made on the overall facts, and the reference to the offence being bailable was merely incidental. No subsequent circumstance was shown to warrant reconsideration of bail already granted, so the challenge to the bail order failed and the bail order was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771018</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>