Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail in a prosecution under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in view of the bar under Section 37, when the material against him consisted principally of statements recorded under Section 67 and call detail records.
Analysis: The alleged recovery was of commercial quantity, so the restrictions under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 applied. The material relied upon by the prosecution to connect the petitioner with the contraband was the statement recorded under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and the statement of a co-accused recorded on the same footing. Such confessional statements were held to be inadmissible in evidence. The remaining circumstance was call detail records showing contact between the petitioner and the co-accused, but that contact, without any conversation record or other substantive evidence, was held insufficient to establish guilt at the stage of bail. No material was shown to indicate previous similar conduct or likelihood of repetition.
Conclusion: The petitioner made out reasonable grounds to believe that he was not guilty for the purpose of Section 37, and bail was granted.