Supreme Court Quashes Rajasthan Village Renaming, Says Government Must Follow its Own Policy || NCLAT: NCLT Can Order Forensic Audit on its Own, No Separate Application Required || NCLAT Reiterates That IBC Cannot be Invoked as a Recovery Tool for Contractual Disputes || Delhi HC: DRI or Central Revenues Control Lab Presence in Delhi Alone Does Not Confer Jurisdiction || Delhi High Court: Software Receipts Not Taxable on PE Basis Already Rejected by ITAT || Delhi High Court: Statutory Appeals Cannot Be Denied Due to DRAT Vacancies or Administrative Delays || J&K&L HC: Failure to Frame Limitation Issue Not Fatal; Courts May Examine Limitation Suo Motu || Bombay HC: Preventing Feeding Stray Dogs at Society or Bus Stop is Not 'Wrongful Restraint' || Gujarat HC: Not All Injuries Reduce Earning Capacity; Functional Disability Must Be Assessed || Delhi HC: Framing of Charges is Interlocutory and Not Appealable under Section 21 of NIA Act

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 :