<?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>2005 (12) TMI 595 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285830</link>
    <description>Grant of bail in an NDPS prosecution cannot stand where the court ignores Section 37&#039;s mandatory conditions. The bail order here was based only on the length of custody and did not consider the statutory twin requirements for bail under the Act. Because compliance with Section 37 is compulsory in proceedings under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the order was unsustainable in law and was set aside, with the accused directed back into custody.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Jan 2020 10:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=601780" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (12) TMI 595 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285830</link>
      <description>Grant of bail in an NDPS prosecution cannot stand where the court ignores Section 37&#039;s mandatory conditions. The bail order here was based only on the length of custody and did not consider the statutory twin requirements for bail under the Act. Because compliance with Section 37 is compulsory in proceedings under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the order was unsustainable in law and was set aside, with the accused directed back into custody.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285830</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>