SC: ‘Abandonment of Service is Not Voluntary Retirement’, Denying SBI Clerk Pension Benefits || Supreme Court: Stranger Affected by an Interim Order is Entitled to be Impleaded in Writ Proceedings || Supreme Court: Courts Cannot Replace an Authority’s Discretion, and Sets Aside Direction to Governor || SC: Title Suit Hit by Constructive Res Judicata if Omitted in Prior Injunction Suit Disputing Title || SC Clarifies Whether a Co-Operative Society Can Act as a Resolution Applicant under the IBC || Chhattisgarh High Court: Innocent Litigants Should Not be Penalized For Lapses by Their Lawyers || Delhi High Court: Marriage With the Victim Cannot Absolve an Accused of Rape under POCSO || J&K&L HC: Acquisition Lapses if 80% Compensation is Unpaid Before Possession under Section 17A || Delhi HC: Policy Number is Not Mandatory For LIC Details under RTI, But Basic Details are Required || SC: Courts Must Curb Unlicensed Money Lenders; Probes Need Not Wait For New 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 :