Supreme Court: Police May Freeze Bank Accounts under S.102 CrPC in Prevention of Corruption Cases || SC: Arbitrator’s Mandate Ends on Time Expiry; Substituted Arbitrator Must Continue After Extension || SC: Woman May Move Her Department’s ICC For Harassment by Employee of Another Workplace || SC: Women’s Representation Requirement Applies to All Bar Associations in Gujarat || SC: Contempt Power isn’t Judges’ Personal Shield nor a Tool to Silence Legitimate Criticism || SC: Statutory Corporation Can Deduct under S.36(1)(viii) Only for Income from Long-Term Finance || NCLT Kolkata: Costs for Compromise or Arrangement Scheme not Part of Liquidation Expenses || NCLT Ahmedabad: Complaints Against Auditors or Company Secretaries Not Grounds for Company Probe || SC: NCLT Can Forfeit Entire Deposit if Purchaser Defaults on Payment for Liquidation Assets || Meghalaya HC: Non-Signatory or Non-Existent LLP Cannot Claim Arbitration via Group of Companies

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 :