<?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>2001 (11) TMI 1049 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285831</link>
    <description>Bail under the NDPS Act must be tested against the mandatory restrictions in Section 37, and an order granting release without addressing those requirements cannot stand. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court granted bail without considering the statutory bar and, because Section 37 was not dealt with, quashed both the Special Judge&#039;s bail order and the revisional order. The accused was directed to be taken into custody forthwith.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Jul 2021 14:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=601781" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (11) TMI 1049 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285831</link>
      <description>Bail under the NDPS Act must be tested against the mandatory restrictions in Section 37, and an order granting release without addressing those requirements cannot stand. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court granted bail without considering the statutory bar and, because Section 37 was not dealt with, quashed both the Special Judge&#039;s bail order and the revisional order. The accused was directed to be taken into custody forthwith.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285831</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>