Supreme Court Upholds Conviction as Husband Failed to Explain Wife’s Death in Matrimonial Home || Supreme Court: Crime Scene Re-Enactment Does Not Always Violate Right Against Self-Incrimination || Supreme Court: Cognizance Taken Without Hearing Accused under BNSS Section 223 is Void Ab Initio || Supreme Court Upholds Will in Sister’s Favour, Says Excluding Natural Heirs is Not Suspicious || Delhi HC: Absence of Public Witnesses and Videography in NDPS Recovery Relevant for Bail Decisions || Raj HC Initiates Suo Motu Cognizance Over Severe Water Crisis in Jodhpur, Issues Interim Directions || Del HC: Courts Cannot Direct, Monitor Inquiry Into Police Delay in Investigation After Bail Decision || Supreme Court: After the BNSS, a Pre-Cognizance Hearing is Mandatory in PMLA Cases || SC: Landowners Cannot be Forced to Waive Statutory Compensation to Claim Other Benefits || Supreme Court: Banks are Lenient With Big Borrowers But Strict With Ordinary Loan Applicants

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 :