<?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 (5) TMI 2299 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469304</link>
    <description>Prolonged pre-trial incarceration, limited trial progress and the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 are treated as capable of outweighing the rigour of Section 21(4) of MCOCA where delay is not attributable to the accused. The text also notes that parity with co-accused who have been acquitted, granted bail or obtained suspension of sentence can support release, particularly when the accused&#039;s own earlier cases do not justify continued detention. It further records a serious prima facie doubt about continued detention under MCOCA because the case relied on for invocation had ended in acquittal and the approval material did not clearly extend to the remaining cases.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Jun 2026 21:16:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=906923" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 2299 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469304</link>
      <description>Prolonged pre-trial incarceration, limited trial progress and the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 are treated as capable of outweighing the rigour of Section 21(4) of MCOCA where delay is not attributable to the accused. The text also notes that parity with co-accused who have been acquitted, granted bail or obtained suspension of sentence can support release, particularly when the accused&#039;s own earlier cases do not justify continued detention. It further records a serious prima facie doubt about continued detention under MCOCA because the case relied on for invocation had ended in acquittal and the approval material did not clearly extend to the remaining cases.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469304</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>