<?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>2022 (9) TMI 1692 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465916</link>
    <description>In a bail application arising from allegations of criminal conspiracy to murder by hiring contract killers, the HC found that the material, taken together, prima facie indicated a coordinated plan against the deceased. The Court relied on prior animus, recorded threats, alleged efforts to secure an executor, telephonic contacts among the accused, recovery of arms from one applicant&#039;s premises, and the deceased&#039;s complaints expressing fear for his life. It held that detailed scrutiny of admissibility or reliability was unnecessary at the bail stage, and that the risk of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses could not be dismissed. Bail was therefore rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2026 17:47:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=878834" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (9) TMI 1692 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465916</link>
      <description>In a bail application arising from allegations of criminal conspiracy to murder by hiring contract killers, the HC found that the material, taken together, prima facie indicated a coordinated plan against the deceased. The Court relied on prior animus, recorded threats, alleged efforts to secure an executor, telephonic contacts among the accused, recovery of arms from one applicant&#039;s premises, and the deceased&#039;s complaints expressing fear for his life. It held that detailed scrutiny of admissibility or reliability was unnecessary at the bail stage, and that the risk of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses could not be dismissed. Bail was therefore rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465916</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>