Supreme Court: Rape Conviction Possible Without S.376 Charge if POCSO Case Fails on Age Proof || SC: Mere Long Possession Can't Establish Adverse Possession; Hostile Intent is Required || Supreme Court Finds Gaps in FSSAI’s Proposed Warning Labels for Foods High in Fat, Sugar and Salt || Supreme Court Quashes ITS Officer's 'Deadwood' Retirement, Orders Rs. 15 Lakh Payment || Uttarakhand HC: District Magistrate to Establish Public Helpline within 24 Hrs amid Water Pollution || Allahabad HC: Custodial Violence and Molestation Are Crimes, Not Police Duty || Gujarat High Court: Bombay Public Trust Registration is Covered by Section 43 of the Waqf Act || J&K&L HC: Advocates not Above Law, No Immunity from Lawful Police Inquiry || Gauhati HC: Talaq-e-Hasan Valid, Requires Registration under Assam Marriage Act || NCLAT: NCLT President Empowered to Transfer Cases from One Bench to Another

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 :