<?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>2026 (1) TMI 151 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784395</link>
    <description>Regular bail was considered in a liquor-scam prosecution where the accused was not named in the FIR or earlier charge-sheets, no recovery was made, and the case rested largely on witness statements and documentary material. The Court treated detailed scrutiny of disputed material at the bail stage as impermissible, noted that custodial interrogation was no longer required, and found that substantial investigation had already been completed. It also relied on parity with similarly placed co-accused and the likelihood of prolonged trial, holding that continued pre-trial custody was unjustified and that procedural concerns in further investigation strengthened the bail claim.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2026 08:04:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=875912" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (1) TMI 151 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784395</link>
      <description>Regular bail was considered in a liquor-scam prosecution where the accused was not named in the FIR or earlier charge-sheets, no recovery was made, and the case rested largely on witness statements and documentary material. The Court treated detailed scrutiny of disputed material at the bail stage as impermissible, noted that custodial interrogation was no longer required, and found that substantial investigation had already been completed. It also relied on parity with similarly placed co-accused and the likelihood of prolonged trial, holding that continued pre-trial custody was unjustified and that procedural concerns in further investigation strengthened the bail claim.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784395</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>