TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Bail Granted Due to Lack of Evidence in Ephedrine Export Case; Petitioner Released with Conditions After Year in Custody.</h1> <h3>N.C. CHELLATHAMBI Versus N.C.B.</h3> The court granted bail to the petitioner under the NDPS Act, considering the lack of direct evidence and recovery linking the petitioner to the alleged ... - Issues: Bail application under NDPS Act involving ephedrine export to Manila, lack of recovery from petitioner, absence of direct evidence implicating petitioner, identification of witnesses, application of Section 37 of NDPS Act.In this judgment, the primary issue revolves around a bail application under the NDPS Act concerning the export of ephedrine to Manila. The petitioner's counsel argued that no recovery was made from the petitioner and emphasized that ephedrine, while a controlled substance, is not a drug or psychotropic substance. The prosecution alleged that 1 ton of ephedrine was exported to Manila by a specific concern, implicating individuals associated with it, but not directly linking the petitioner to the offense. The petitioner had been in custody for over a year, and it was contended that Section 37 of the NDPS Act was not applicable in this case.The State's counsel opposed bail, claiming that the ephedrine export was orchestrated by the petitioner, who allegedly received a consideration for it. However, beyond statements under Section 67, there was a lack of substantial evidence directly connecting the petitioner to the crime. The absence of concrete evidence implicating the petitioner was a significant point of contention during the proceedings.Additionally, the petitioner's counsel reiterated that key witnesses had not identified the petitioner, further weakening the case against him. Based on the submissions, facts, and circumstances presented, including the petitioner's extended custody period and the inapplicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the court directed the petitioner's release on bail. The bail was granted upon furnishing a personal bond and surety, with the condition that the petitioner must not leave India without prior court permission.Overall, the judgment carefully considered the lack of direct evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged offense, the absence of recovery from the petitioner, and the specific circumstances of the case to grant bail under the NDPS Act while imposing necessary conditions to ensure the petitioner's availability for further proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
