SC: Cheque Dishonour Complaint Can't be Quashed Pre-Trial if Sec 138 NI Act Conditions Met || SC: Personal Hearing Not Required Before Banks Declare Account ‘Fraud’ || Supreme Court Faults UCO Bank For Attempt to Stall Employee’s VRS Through Show Cause Notice || SC: PwD Post in Unreserved Category Can be Filled by SC/ST/OBC Candidates With Disabilities || Delhi HC: FSSAI Has No Authority to Regulate Animal Feed || Gauhati HC: Adult Son Pursuing Studies is Not Entitled to Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC || Cal HC Upholds Divorce, Rules False Cases by Wife And 17-Year Separation Constitute Mental Cruelty || Supreme Court: Calling Someone ‘Bastard’ In Heated Exchange Isn’t Obscenity under IPC Section 294 || Supreme Court: Even a Single Tainted Public Work Award Violates Article 14 || Supreme Court Upholds Lease Cancellation, Denies Relief for Failure to Develop Allotted Land

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 :