Supreme Court tells Parsvnath Developers to Comply with Haryana RERA Orders or Face Jail || Supreme Court: Article 142 Cannot Override a Concluded and Acted-Upon Settlement Between Parties || SC Grants One-Time Relief, Allows Law Students to Take Exams Despite Attendance Shortage || SC Grants One-Time Relief, Allows Law Students to Take Exams Despite Attendance Shortage || Supreme Court: Murder Inside a Vehicle Does Not Qualify For Motor Accident Compensation || Supreme Court: Section 50 NDPS Act Inapplicable to Recovery from Articles Carried by Accused || J&K&L High Court: Death of Sole Accused Brings Disproportionate Assets Attachment Case to an End || Calcutta High Court: Child Marriage Allegation Alone Cannot Justify Ordering a POCSO FIR || Calcutta High Court: Trial Courts Can't Compel Mediation in Mutual Consent Divorce Cases || Kerala High Court Orders DGP to Set Up Special Squads Across Districts for Hit-and-Run 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 :