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 || Delhi HC: Minimum Wages During Pending Litigation Cannot be Frozen and Must be Updated Periodically || Kerala HC: ICC Can Probe Sexual Harassment Complaint Against a Director Not Controlling Affairs || Delhi HC: Interim Protection From Blacklisting Does Not Remove Bidder’s Duty to Disclose in Tenders || Allahabad HC: After the BNSS, Pre-Cognizance Hearing of the Accused is Mandatory in NDPS Complaints || Delhi HC: Husband Cannot Avoid Maintenance For Wife and Children by Claiming Irregular Income || SC: Repeated Anticipatory Bail Pleas Abuse Process and Reduce Litigation to a Gamble || Supreme Court: State Officers Cannot Back Litigants Through Affidavits Against the Law

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 :