<?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 (12) TMI 1006 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783466</link>
    <description>Regular bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was granted where the accused had remained in custody for more than two years and charges had not yet been framed. The Court treated the prolonged incarceration and the early stage of proceedings as sufficient grounds to enlarge the appellant on bail, despite recovery of a substantial amount of money. Bail was allowed on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2025 08:28:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=872092" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (12) TMI 1006 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783466</link>
      <description>Regular bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was granted where the accused had remained in custody for more than two years and charges had not yet been framed. The Court treated the prolonged incarceration and the early stage of proceedings as sufficient grounds to enlarge the appellant on bail, despite recovery of a substantial amount of money. Bail was allowed on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783466</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>