<?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>PMLA anticipatory bail refused where evasive answers, false affidavits and obstructive conduct justified custodial interrogation.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98271</link>
    <description>In a PMLA anticipatory bail matter, the High Court held that the settled twin-condition framework under Section 45 had to be applied on the facts, and refused relief where the accused had remained evasive in interrogation, made false sworn statements, filed a contradictory affidavit, and obstructed searches. The Court distinguished the husband&#039;s regular bail order because he had cooperated and a supplementary chargesheet had already been filed against him. It accepted the Enforcement Directorate&#039;s case that custodial interrogation was necessary to trace alleged proceeds of crime assets and enable disclosure for restitution to investors. Anticipatory bail was therefore denied and the application dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2026 07:51:09 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2026 07:51:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=894236" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>PMLA anticipatory bail refused where evasive answers, false affidavits and obstructive conduct justified custodial interrogation.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98271</link>
      <description>In a PMLA anticipatory bail matter, the High Court held that the settled twin-condition framework under Section 45 had to be applied on the facts, and refused relief where the accused had remained evasive in interrogation, made false sworn statements, filed a contradictory affidavit, and obstructed searches. The Court distinguished the husband&#039;s regular bail order because he had cooperated and a supplementary chargesheet had already been filed against him. It accepted the Enforcement Directorate&#039;s case that custodial interrogation was necessary to trace alleged proceeds of crime assets and enable disclosure for restitution to investors. Anticipatory bail was therefore denied and the application dismissed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2026 07:51:09 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98271</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>