https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325208 Anticipatory bail under the NDPS Act was refused because the alleged recovery and diversion of psychotropic and controlled substances attracted the stringent Section 37 bail embargo. On the material before it, the Court found that, if proved, the allegations could establish involvement and that reasonable grounds for believing the petitioner was not guilty were not made out. The petitioner's repeated failure to join investigation despite summons and interim protection, withdrawal of earlier bail proceedings, and execution of coercive process were treated as conduct disentitling him to discretionary relief. Parity with co-accused was rejected because their position was treated differently under the statutory embargo. en-us Thu, 18 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Oct 2016 17:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325208 Anticipatory bail under the NDPS Act was refused because the alleged recovery and diversion of psychotropic and controlled substances attracted the stringent Section 37 bail embargo. On the material before it, the Court found that, if proved, the allegations could establish involvement and that reasonable grounds for believing the petitioner was not guilty were not made out. The petitioner's repeated failure to join investigation despite summons and interim protection, withdrawal of earlier bail proceedings, and execution of coercive process were treated as conduct disentitling him to discretionary relief. Parity with co-accused was rejected because their position was treated differently under the statutory embargo. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 18 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325208