Allahabad HC: Victim Compensation under POCSO Act Cannot be Withheld For Lack of Injury Report || MP HC: Diverting Goods From Delivery Point is Misappropriation under S.407 IPC || Delhi HC: Bar Associations are Not ‘State’ under Article 12 as They Do Not Perform Public Functions || Delhi HC: Pending Probate Proceedings Do Not Prevent Filing FIR For Alleged Will Forgery || Ker HC: Dismissal For Default Alone Cannot Justify Rejecting Restoration Plea For Lack of Vigilance || SC: Disclosure Statements Alone Cannot Secure Conviction Without a Complete Chain of Evidence || Supreme Court Orders Reporting of Student Suicides and Bans Denial of Classes or Exams || SC: Govt Can Exclude Overqualified Candidates From Posts Requiring Lower Qualifications || SC: Contracts to Hire Global Speakers For Media Summits are Not Taxable as Event Management Services || SC: Mandatory Injunction Suit Alone is Not Maintainable When Plaintiff’s Title is Disputed

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 :