Supreme Court: Promotion Remains Valid Even if an Employee's Grade Pay Stays Unchanged || SC Orders Bihar Government to Remove Ganga Riverbank Encroachments in Patna Within Six Weeks || Bombay HC: Child of Single Mother Can’t be Denied RTE Quota over Deceased Father's Caste Certificate || J&K&L HC: Complaint Dismissed Before Cognisance is Not an Acquittal & is Challengeable U/S 528 BNSS || Delhi HC Acquits Man in 2006 Rape Case, Says Names Like Ram or Mohammad do Not Define Virtue || Gujarat HC: Whatsapp Forward of Fake Newspaper Clipping Not Forgery Absent Proof of Fabrication || Supreme Court tells Parsvnath Developers to Comply with Haryana RERA Orders or Face Jail || Supreme Court: Article 142 Cannot Override a Concluded and Acted-Upon Settlement Between Parties || SC Grants One-Time Relief, Allows Law Students to Take Exams Despite Attendance Shortage || SC Grants One-Time Relief, Allows Law Students to Take Exams Despite Attendance Shortage

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 :