Supreme Court: Companies Can Face Prosecution Without Individual Officers Being Named || SC: Penalties on Insolvent Developers cannot be Recovered from Homebuyers as CIRP Costs || Allahabad HC: ‘Sar Tan Se Juda’ Hits Sovereignty, Unlike ‘Allahu-Akbar’, ‘Jai Shri Ram’ || Kerala High Court: Married Woman Cannot Claim Sex Was Based Solely on Promise of Marriage || Madras High Court Refuses Equal Recitation of Tamil Hymns With Sanskrit at Meenakshi Temple || Delhi HC: Absence of ‘Penetration’ In Child Victim’s Testimony Not Enough to Acquit Rape Accused || J&K High Court: Possession of Allegedly Anti-National Book Cannot Justify Preventive Detention || Delhi High Court: DNA Evidence Proves Sexual Intercourse, Not Consent || Madras High Court Upholds Appointment of District Judges as Tamil Nadu Lokayukta Secretary || Allahabad High Court: IO’s Mere Apprehension Cannot Justify Withholding Seized Items

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 :