<?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 1894 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470191</link>
    <description>Regular bail in an alleged money-laundering matter was examined against the statutory twin conditions, the petitioner&#039;s alleged role in diverting homebuyers&#039; funds, and flight-risk indicators. The notes state that repeated non-compliance with summons, unexecuted warrants, and an alleged attempt to flee supported refusal of bail. They further state that the post-cognizance stage, anticipated evidence, and number of accused and witnesses did not demonstrate inordinate or unavoidable trial delay, while the custody period was not independently sufficient to justify release. Bail granted to a co-accused did not establish parity because that order was under challenge.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +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=912433" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 1894 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470191</link>
      <description>Regular bail in an alleged money-laundering matter was examined against the statutory twin conditions, the petitioner&#039;s alleged role in diverting homebuyers&#039; funds, and flight-risk indicators. The notes state that repeated non-compliance with summons, unexecuted warrants, and an alleged attempt to flee supported refusal of bail. They further state that the post-cognizance stage, anticipated evidence, and number of accused and witnesses did not demonstrate inordinate or unavoidable trial delay, while the custody period was not independently sufficient to justify release. Bail granted to a co-accused did not establish parity because that order was under challenge.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470191</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>