<?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 (4) TMI 1147 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT-[LB]</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790078</link>
    <description>Earlier decisions on conversion of non-bailable warrants into bailable warrants under Section 70(2) CrPC or Section 72(2) BNSS were found to be fact-specific and not to establish any vested right in the accused. One case upheld non-bailable warrants in an economic offence context, another rejected challenge to warrants after considering the allegations and the accused&#039;s role, and a third permitted conversion only on its peculiar facts while exercising inherent jurisdiction. No inconsistent legal principle emerged from these rulings, so no conflicting view was found and the Larger Bench found no legal question requiring an answer, leaving the reference to be decided on merits by the Single Judge.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Apr 2026 08:22:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=897271" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 1147 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT-[LB]</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790078</link>
      <description>Earlier decisions on conversion of non-bailable warrants into bailable warrants under Section 70(2) CrPC or Section 72(2) BNSS were found to be fact-specific and not to establish any vested right in the accused. One case upheld non-bailable warrants in an economic offence context, another rejected challenge to warrants after considering the allegations and the accused&#039;s role, and a third permitted conversion only on its peculiar facts while exercising inherent jurisdiction. No inconsistent legal principle emerged from these rulings, so no conflicting view was found and the Larger Bench found no legal question requiring an answer, leaving the reference to be decided on merits by the Single Judge.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790078</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>