Supreme Court: Marking a Document as an Exhibit Does Not Prove its Contents || Supreme Court: Unpaid Consideration Alone Does Not Invalidate a Sale Deed || Bombay HC: Questioning Other Varsities' Degrees Could Cause 'Anarchy and Chaos' in Education System || Allahabad High Court: Regularization Claim Survives Employee’s Death Through Legal Heirs || Allahabad HC: Advocates Failing AIBE Within 2 Years of Provisional Enrolment Can’t Continue Practice || Bombay High Court Directs BCI to Scrutinise and Clear Pending Law College Affiliation Approvals || J&K HC: Circulating WhatsApp Message on Local COVID Cases Does Not Attract Section 505 IPC || Supreme Court: Non-Signatory Can Be Bound By an Agreement if Involved in Performing the Contract || Supreme Court: 'Washed-Off Theory' Inapplicable in Assessing Employee Retention Suitability || SC Directs States/UTs to Grant Ex-Servicemen Quota to Cadets Disabled 40% or More in Training

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 :