<?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 twin bail conditions remained unsatisfied as alleged fund diversion, flight risk, and imminent trial defeated regular bail.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=101862</link>
    <description>Regular bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act remained subject to the statutory twin conditions, which the petitioner did not attempt to satisfy. The High Court noted allegations that homebuyers&#039; funds were diverted through group concerns, repeated evasion of summons and warrants, and an attempted flight on apprehension, supporting the assessment of flight risk. It found that trial had reached cognizance and was due to commence without foreseeable prosecutorial delay; custody was not substantial in the circumstances. Bail granted to a co-accused did not establish parity. Regular bail was therefore refused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 18 Jul 2026 21:09:48 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Jul 2026 21:09:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=912428" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>PMLA twin bail conditions remained unsatisfied as alleged fund diversion, flight risk, and imminent trial defeated regular bail.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=101862</link>
      <description>Regular bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act remained subject to the statutory twin conditions, which the petitioner did not attempt to satisfy. The High Court noted allegations that homebuyers&#039; funds were diverted through group concerns, repeated evasion of summons and warrants, and an attempted flight on apprehension, supporting the assessment of flight risk. It found that trial had reached cognizance and was due to commence without foreseeable prosecutorial delay; custody was not substantial in the circumstances. Bail granted to a co-accused did not establish parity. Regular bail was therefore refused.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 18 Jul 2026 21:09:48 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=101862</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>