#default bail

[gstindiaguide-blog1]

Default bail granted as High Court held that imposition of stringent financial conditions defeats the constitutional right to personal liberty

Case Title: Pawan Kumar v. Inspector (Preventive), Central Goods and Services TaxCourt: High Court of Punjab and Haryana at ChandigarhPetition No.: CRM-M-19076-2024 (O&M)Date of Judgment: 05.03.2025Relevant Sections: Section 132(1)(b), (c), (i) of CGST Act, 2017; Section 167(2) CrPC; Section 479 BNSS, 2023Category of Dispute: Bail under GST offence (Default Bail / Onerous Conditions) Facts (Paras…

Default bail granted as High Court held that imposition of stringent financial conditions defeats the constitutional right to personal liberty

[gstindiaguide-blog1]

Default bail denied as filing of complaint by GST authority within 60 days was held sufficient compliance with Section 167(2) CrPC

Case Reference Paritosh Kumar Singh alias Diwakar Choudhary & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.High Court of Chhattisgarh, BilaspurWrit Appeal No. 348 of 2021Judgment reserved on: 21.03.2022 | Delivered on: 22.04.2022Category: Bail under Section 167(2) CrPC in GST fraud caseRelevant Provisions: Section 132(1)(b) & (c), 134 of CGST Act, 2017; Section 167(2), 173, 190 CrPC Facts (Paras 2–6) The…

Default bail denied as filing of complaint by GST authority within 60 days was held sufficient compliance with Section 167(2) CrPC

[youthchronical]

Delhi HC seeks ED response on Satyendar Jain’s bail plea

The High Court here on Tuesday asked the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to respond to a plea by former Delhi Health Minister Satyendar Jain seeking default bail in a money laundering case, citing “delay” in the completion of the probe. The court also called for the nominal roll of Mr. Jain from Tihar Jail and listed the matter for further hearing on July 9. Mr. Jain is accused of having laundered…

View On WordPress

[sanskritiiasdelhi]

Recently, the Bombay High Court has granted bail to Sudha Bharadwaj, accused in the Elgar Parishad case. According to the Bombay High Court, the Sessions Court under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) did not have appropriate jurisdiction to ex