SC: Clarificatory Statement Does Not Constitute a Binding Undertaking for Contempt Proceedings || Supreme Court: Litigant Cannot be Worse Off for Filing an Appeal under ‘No Reformatio in Peius’ || Orissa HC: Article 22(1) Arrest Rights Pre-Exist, Written Grounds Ruling Not Prospective || Kerala HC: Kissing a Child’s Penis Constitutes Penetrative Sexual Assault under POCSO || Madras HC: Married Daughter Cannot be Denied Compassionate Appointment Solely for Her Marriage || Bombay High Court: Child Welfare Prevails as ‘Joint Parenting’ is Not Recognised in Indian Law || Kerala HC: Minor’s Consent or Relationship with Accused Holds No Relevance under POCSO Act || Bombay HC: Failure to Prove Exact Quantum of Loss Does Not Bar Compensation || CCPA Fines Dial4Trade Rs. 10 Lakh for Online Ammonium Nitrate Listing Featuring Blast Images || Supreme Court: Multiple Cases Alone Cannot Justify an Externment Order

R. Subramanian v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. - (High Court of Madras) (18 Sep 2015)

Madras High Court denies anticipatory bail to Subhiksha promoter

MANU/TN/2944/2015

Criminal

The Court denied anticipatory bail to R. Subramanian, noting that it had already passed lenient orders in the past in efforts to enable some repayment to depositors of the 49 accused companies that the Petitioner was associated with. Dismissing the petition, the Court held that it was not sufficiently shown that giving Mr. Subramanian unfettered access to his office without fear of arrest would advance the cause of the depositors, given the documents already seized by prosecution.

Tags : ANTICIPATORY BAIL DEPOSITORS ACCESS

Share :