Delhi HC: Girl Being Friendly on Valentine’s Day Does Not Justify Forced Sexual Activity under POCSO || Delhi HC: Street Vendors Must Maintain Cleanliness and Not Encroach on Public Spaces || Delhi HC: Victim’s Negligence Cannot Bar Compensation in Railway Accident Cases || Jharkhand HC: Pre-1947 Transfers Exempt from Section 46; 45-Year Delay Blocks Restoration || Delhi HC: Mediation Settlement Does Not Remove Criminal Liability But Can be Considered For Bail || Delhi High Court: Newslaundry Acted Maliciously and Showed Intolerance Toward TV Today || SC: New Tree Growth on Land Approved For Development Does Not Qualify it as 'Deemed Forest' || SC: Confiscation Proceedings Can Continue Against Wife of Deceased Public Servant with Illicit Asset || Supreme Court: Strict Procedure Must be Followed under UP Gangsters Act Due to Serious Consequences || Supreme Court: HCs Can Go Beyond FIR to Quash Frivolous or Vexatious Criminal Cases

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 :