https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781950 HC considered the petitioner's bail plea in a non-bailable economic offence under Section 132(1)(b)(c)(f)(l) of the 2017 Act, examining Section 480(6) B.N.S.S. The Court held that this provision, though not creating an absolute right, safeguards liberty where trial is delayed despite the accused being in continuous custody. The petitioner had been in custody since 03.06.2024, cognizance was taken on 01.02.2025, and only three of ten witnesses had been examined, with no delay attributable to the petitioner and no urgency shown by the trial court. Relying on precedent and Article 21 considerations, HC invoked Section 480(6) and granted bail. en-us Thu, 16 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 22 Nov 2025 07:36:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781950 HC considered the petitioner's bail plea in a non-bailable economic offence under Section 132(1)(b)(c)(f)(l) of the 2017 Act, examining Section 480(6) B.N.S.S. The Court held that this provision, though not creating an absolute right, safeguards liberty where trial is delayed despite the accused being in continuous custody. The petitioner had been in custody since 03.06.2024, cognizance was taken on 01.02.2025, and only three of ten witnesses had been examined, with no delay attributable to the petitioner and no urgency shown by the trial court. Relying on precedent and Article 21 considerations, HC invoked Section 480(6) and granted bail. Case-Laws GST Thu, 16 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781950