<?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 1690 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463562</link>
    <description>In a PMLA bail assessment, the Court examined whether the accused satisfied the Section 45 twin conditions in light of allegations that he helped supply blank pages and original volumes to facilitate fake deeds, along with bank-account credits and cash deposits treated as linked proceeds. The Court treated money laundering as an independent and continuing offence, applied the presumption under Section 24, and held that the material disclosed prima facie involvement. It rejected the argument that the accused was not named in the scheduled offence and declined parity because his role was distinct from co-accused granted bail. Bail was refused for failure to meet the statutory conditions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Sep 2025 16:43:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=848645" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (4) TMI 1690 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463562</link>
      <description>In a PMLA bail assessment, the Court examined whether the accused satisfied the Section 45 twin conditions in light of allegations that he helped supply blank pages and original volumes to facilitate fake deeds, along with bank-account credits and cash deposits treated as linked proceeds. The Court treated money laundering as an independent and continuing offence, applied the presumption under Section 24, and held that the material disclosed prima facie involvement. It rejected the argument that the accused was not named in the scheduled offence and declined parity because his role was distinct from co-accused granted bail. Bail was refused for failure to meet the statutory conditions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463562</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>