<?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 (8) TMI 1563 - SC Order (LB)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777375</link>
    <description>In proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Supreme Court considered bail applications where the prosecution relied on the seriousness of the allegations. Bail was granted on parity and related considerations because the main accused had already been released on bail by the High Court, the challenge to that order had failed, and other accused had also been enlarged on bail. The Court extended the same relief to the petitioners.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2025 08:56:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=846638" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (8) TMI 1563 - SC Order (LB)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777375</link>
      <description>In proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Supreme Court considered bail applications where the prosecution relied on the seriousness of the allegations. Bail was granted on parity and related considerations because the main accused had already been released on bail by the High Court, the challenge to that order had failed, and other accused had also been enlarged on bail. The Court extended the same relief to the petitioners.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777375</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>