Uttarakhand HC: Severity of POCSO Charges Alone Cannot Deny Juvenile Bail || Madras HC Grants Anticipatory Bail to Man Accused of Watching CM Vijay's Unreleased Film Online || Jharkhand HC: Interest under Employees' Compensation Act Runs From Date of Accident || Bombay HC Quashes Wakf Property Mutation as Enemy Property, Mandates Due Process || J&K&L High Court: Limitation Must be Decided Before Hearing Appeal Against 31-Year-Old Mutation || Allahabad HC Summons UP Home Secretary Over Delay in Custodial Death Compensation Guidelines || Delhi HC Differs with DPIIT Paper, Says ChatGPT Injunction Would Hurt AI Development || Supreme Court: MHADA can Enforce Developer's Rehabilitation Commitments || SC: Transfer of Defrauded Funds To Accused's Account Alone Cannot Warrant Clubbing FIRs || Supreme Court: States with Under 1,000 Consumer Cases Can Abolish Select District Commissions

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 :