Supreme Court Rebukes RBI for Remaining a Bystander as YES Bank Operated Clandestinely || Supreme Court: Lower Fresh Bids Alone Cannot Justify Cancellation of an Auction || Supreme Court Directs Delhi Police to Produce Section 163 BNSS Orders and Preserve CCTV Footage || Supreme Court Affirms Menstrual Hygiene as a Fundamental Right, Warns States of Contempt || Supreme Court Flags AI-Generated Fake Judgments Submitted in a Party’s Case Compilation || Karnataka High Court: Vijay Mallya’s Flamboyant Lifestyle Hinders Settlement of Bank Claims || Delhi High Court: Women can be Booked for Gang Rape without Physically Committing it || Delhi High Court: Litigants Must Track Their Cases and Cannot Blame Lawyers for Their Own Inaction || Allahabad High Court: Contract Workers Must Prove Work Parity With Regular Staff for Equal Pay || Allahabad High Court Directs UP Trial Courts to Decide Maintenance Execution Cases Within Six Months

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 :