https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791952 A bail condition requiring the applicant to furnish a security bond equal to the complainant's claim was construed as a bond requirement, not a direction to deposit money in advance or provide a bank guarantee. The cited Supreme Court rulings were found factually distinguishable and inapplicable. As the same condition had already been challenged before the Supreme Court, the High Court declined to reconsider it, since doing so would amount to an impermissible review of the earlier bail order. No ground for modification was made out, and the application was dismissed. en-us Mon, 09 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 May 2026 08:31:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791952 A bail condition requiring the applicant to furnish a security bond equal to the complainant's claim was construed as a bond requirement, not a direction to deposit money in advance or provide a bank guarantee. The cited Supreme Court rulings were found factually distinguishable and inapplicable. As the same condition had already been challenged before the Supreme Court, the High Court declined to reconsider it, since doing so would amount to an impermissible review of the earlier bail order. No ground for modification was made out, and the application was dismissed. Case-Laws GST Mon, 09 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791952