<?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>Bail granted with Rs100,000 and two sureties after arrest held unlawful for failing Section 35(3) and 35(1)(b)(ii) violations</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92460</link>
    <description>The HC allowed the accused&#039;s bail application and directed release on bail of Rs.100,000 with two like sureties, subject to CJM&#039;s satisfaction and standard conditions. The court held the arrest unlawful because statutory preconditions were not satisfied: no notice under Section 35(3) BNSS, 2023 was issued and the arresting authority failed to record in writing the specific grounds of satisfaction required by Section 35(1)(b)(ii). Mere recital that the accused might tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, without material or stated reasons, violated the procedural mandate and the Arnesh Kumar principles. In consequence, the illegality of arrest warranted bail despite the offence attracting imprisonment up to five years.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2025 08:45:32 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2025 08:45:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=850006" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Bail granted with Rs100,000 and two sureties after arrest held unlawful for failing Section 35(3) and 35(1)(b)(ii) violations</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92460</link>
      <description>The HC allowed the accused&#039;s bail application and directed release on bail of Rs.100,000 with two like sureties, subject to CJM&#039;s satisfaction and standard conditions. The court held the arrest unlawful because statutory preconditions were not satisfied: no notice under Section 35(3) BNSS, 2023 was issued and the arresting authority failed to record in writing the specific grounds of satisfaction required by Section 35(1)(b)(ii). Mere recital that the accused might tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, without material or stated reasons, violated the procedural mandate and the Arnesh Kumar principles. In consequence, the illegality of arrest warranted bail despite the offence attracting imprisonment up to five years.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2025 08:45:32 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92460</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>