SC: POCSO Guilt Presumption Not Absolute, Acquits Accused || Supreme Court: Promotion Cannot Be Claimed as a Vested Right under Repealed Rules || Supreme Court: Promotion Cannot Be Claimed as a Vested Right under Repealed Rules || SC: Unexplained 5-Day Sample Custody Gap Breached S.52A, Acquits 2 after 20 Years || P&H High Court: Illegal Search Alone Does Not Justify Quashing of Complaint under PNDT Act || Bom HC: Creating WhatsApp Group Without Employer's Permission Not Ground for Compulsory Retirement || Madras HC: Lack of Son’s Moral Support Alone Cannot Sustain Father’s Maintenance Claim under CrPC || Kerala HC: University Professor doesn't Occupy 'Public Office', Quo Warranto Not Maintainable || Bombay HC Allows Cutting of 1,237 Mangroves for Connector Bridge in Mumbai’s Western Suburbs || Calcutta HC Orders Return of 3-Year-Old to Adoptive Couple, he wasn't Abandoned

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 :