<?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 (3) TMI 301 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787546</link>
    <description>Anticipatory bail may be granted where the accused has joined the investigation and no basis is shown for custodial interrogation. The Court held that cooperation with investigation cannot be treated as a duty to incriminate oneself, and non-production of a mobile phone alone did not justify arrest protection being refused. On those facts, continued pre-arrest protection was warranted, subject to compliance with lawful conditions, and the High Court&#039;s refusal of relief was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Mar 2026 10:11:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=889461" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (3) TMI 301 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787546</link>
      <description>Anticipatory bail may be granted where the accused has joined the investigation and no basis is shown for custodial interrogation. The Court held that cooperation with investigation cannot be treated as a duty to incriminate oneself, and non-production of a mobile phone alone did not justify arrest protection being refused. On those facts, continued pre-arrest protection was warranted, subject to compliance with lawful conditions, and the High Court&#039;s refusal of relief was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787546</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>