<?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>2025 (1) TMI 1826 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469306</link>
    <description>Bail pending trial was justified where the accused had remained in custody for about twenty months, charges had not yet been framed, a co-accused had already obtained bail, and the prosecution itself indicated that examination of a large number of witnesses would prolong the trial. On those facts, the Court treated the likely delay in trial as a material circumstance supporting release on bail, subject to conditions fixed by the trial court and cancellation for breach of those conditions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Jun 2026 21:16:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=906921" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (1) TMI 1826 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469306</link>
      <description>Bail pending trial was justified where the accused had remained in custody for about twenty months, charges had not yet been framed, a co-accused had already obtained bail, and the prosecution itself indicated that examination of a large number of witnesses would prolong the trial. On those facts, the Court treated the likely delay in trial as a material circumstance supporting release on bail, subject to conditions fixed by the trial court and cancellation for breach of those conditions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469306</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>