TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether regular bail should be granted in a prosecution under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, where the statements under Section 67 were challenged but the prosecution relied on CCTV footage, mobile-phone images and other material connecting the petitioner with trafficking of commercial quantity contraband.
Analysis: The statement recorded under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 could not by itself be treated as substantive evidence beyond the limits recognised in law. However, the prosecution also relied on independent material, including CCTV footage showing the petitioner with the bags containing contraband, guarantee cards tracing the bags to the petitioner, and images recovered from the mirror image of the petitioner's phone showing weighing of bags, tablets and cash. These materials were treated as substantive evidence against the petitioner and were sufficient to show prima facie complicity. The claim for parity with the co-accused was rejected because the role attributed to the petitioner was distinct and the earlier bail order proceeded on different factual circumstances.
Conclusion: Bail was refused because there was legally admissible material apart from the Section 67 statement linking the petitioner to trafficking of commercial quantity contraband.
TaxTMI 
