<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2018 (8) TMI 1907 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284762</link>
    <description>Bail in an NDPS prosecution is discussed as subject to the restrictive regime of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, even when considered under Section 439 CrPC. The note addresses constitutional objections to those bail restrictions under Articles 14 and 21, and states that, for the limited purpose of bail, the Court examined whether the restriction was fair and rational. On the facts noted, non-compliance with the safeguards under Sections 50 and 51 was treated as supporting the petitioner&#039;s case, the record did not conclusively establish guilt at the bail stage, and the earlier acquittal meant the antecedents did not justify continued custody.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2020 14:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=596753" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (8) TMI 1907 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284762</link>
      <description>Bail in an NDPS prosecution is discussed as subject to the restrictive regime of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, even when considered under Section 439 CrPC. The note addresses constitutional objections to those bail restrictions under Articles 14 and 21, and states that, for the limited purpose of bail, the Court examined whether the restriction was fair and rational. On the facts noted, non-compliance with the safeguards under Sections 50 and 51 was treated as supporting the petitioner&#039;s case, the record did not conclusively establish guilt at the bail stage, and the earlier acquittal meant the antecedents did not justify continued custody.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284762</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>