Supreme Court: Expecting a Minor to Respond to a Public Court Notice is ‘Perverse’ || SC: Order 23 Rule 1 CPC Applies to S. 11 Arbitration Act, Barring Fresh Arbiration After Abandonment || SC: Later Sanction Requirement Won’t Invalidate Cognizance Taken When No Prior Bar Existed || SC: Documents Not Admitted by an Employee in an Enquiry Must be Proved Through Witnesses || Delhi HC: MHA Has Authority to Initiate Disciplinary Proceedings Against AGMUT IAS Officers || MP HC: Financial Hardship or Mere Allegations of Lawyer’s Negligence Cannot Excuse Delayed Appeal || Patna HC: Blanket Approach of Denying Public Employment to Individuals Named in an FIR is Unfair || Kerala HC: Repeated Possession of Even Small Quantities of Narcotic Drugs Can Invoke KAAPA || Calcutta HC: Employers May Deduct Penal Rent From Gratuity of Employees Refusing to Vacate Quarters || Calcutta High Court: ECI Not Singling Out Bengal, More Transfers in Other Poll-Bound States

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 :