SC: Courts Must Curb Unlicensed Money Lenders; Probes Need Not Wait For New Law || SC: Gratuity May be Withheld While Criminal or Disciplinary Proceedings are Pending Against Employee || SC: Weapon Recovery Useless Without Proof Linking it to Crime under Section 27 Evidence Act || SC: Fines Also Run Concurrently When Sentences For Multiple Offences Run Concurrently || SC Dissolves 10-Year Estranged Marriage, Quashes 80+ Cases in 'Matrimonial Mahabharata' Dispute || SC: Board Resolution Signature Alone Doesn’t Prove Director’s Knowledge of Company Affairs || Raj HC: Industrial Tribunal Allowing Workman Legal Representation But Denying Employer is Unequal || Karnataka HC: Service Bonds Enforceable on Students With Subsidised Education, Not Bonded Labour || Gauhati HC: Challenge to Marks Barred by Constructive Res Judicata When Party Accepts Limited Remand || SC: Cheque Dishonour Complaint Can't be Quashed Pre-Trial if Sec 138 NI Act Conditions Met

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 :