P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court || Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long || Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo || Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision || Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act || Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself || Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession || SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings || SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order || NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions

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 :