Delhi HC: Saying “Maro Sale Ko” During a Fight Alone Does Not by Itself Establish Intent to Kill || Delhi HC Ordered Removal of Fake News About Judges’ London Badminton Event, Restrained its Sharing || Bombay HC: Calling Police over Routine Transfers or External Complaints is Misconduct || Delhi HC Upheld EC’s Decision Banning Political Ads in the Delhi Metro During Model Code of Conduct || Delhi HC: In the Telegram Case Entire Social Media Platforms Can Be Blocked U/S 69A of the IT Act || Supreme Court: Pedestrians' Right to Footpaths Cannot be Overridden by Motorists || Supreme Court: Financier Cannot Seek Insurance For a Vehicle Surrendered by its Owner || Madhya Pradesh High Court: Victims Must be Given a Hearing Even Before Closure Report Rejection || Delhi HC: Payment of ‘Pagri’ Does Not Render Tenancy Non-Terminable, Allowing Eviction || Ker HC Examined Whether Electro-Homeopathy Can be Practised Without Registration under Medical Laws

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 :