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 the third bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deserved to be allowed in view of the alleged change in circumstances, including examination of panch witnesses and the stage of trial, despite the applicability of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Analysis: The application arose from allegations relating to recovery of contraband in commercial quantity, attracting the restrictive conditions under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The Court noted that the applicant's earlier bail applications had already been rejected on merits and that the order of the Supreme Court had also declined relief. The Court further noted that, although two panch witnesses had been examined, the investigating officer remained to be examined and no material change in circumstances was shown. The allegation that the applicant had destroyed evidence was also taken into account.
Conclusion: The third bail application was not fit for grant of bail and was dismissed against the applicant.
Final Conclusion: The Court declined to interfere with the applicant's custody and refused bail in the pending NDPS prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: In a case involving commercial quantity under the NDPS Act, a repeated bail application will not be entertained absent a material change in circumstances sufficient to satisfy the statutory restrictions on bail.
TaxTMI 
