SC: Casual Workers Can't be Denied Regularisation if Similar Daily Wagers were Regularised || Supreme Court: Illegal Change of Land Use under Punjab Act Cannot be Legalised Later || Allahabad High Court: Magistrate Must Consider Closure Report Even After Taking Cognizance || Allahabad HC: CGST Arrest Memo Must Include Grounds as Annexure; Reasons to Believe Not Needed || Kerala HC: Petitioner’s Identity Must be Verified Via SHO in Cases of Bank Account Defreezing || J&K&L HC: Undenied Pleadings are Deemed Admitted by Implication under the CPC || Kerala HC: Transfer Order Pending Disciplinary Proceedings Cannot be Disguised as Punishment || Allahabad HC: GST, Incentives, 0r Festival Advances Cannot be Deducted From Employee’s Retiral Dues || SC: Absconding Accused Cannot Claim Anticipatory Bail Solely Because a Co-Accused Was Acquitted || Supreme Court: District Cricket Bodies Must Adopt Good Governance Voluntarily, Not Follow BCCI Rules

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 :