<?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>2021 (3) TMI 739 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405411</link>
    <description>Regular bail was granted in a case involving seizure of pseudoephedrine because the Court treated the substance as a controlled commodity and held that the stringent rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act was not attracted on the facts. The petitioner&#039;s custody of about four months and absence of criminal antecedents supported release, and the Court declined to examine the merits in detail at the bail stage while imposing safeguards.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2021 09:21:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=639290" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (3) TMI 739 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405411</link>
      <description>Regular bail was granted in a case involving seizure of pseudoephedrine because the Court treated the substance as a controlled commodity and held that the stringent rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act was not attracted on the facts. The petitioner&#039;s custody of about four months and absence of criminal antecedents supported release, and the Court declined to examine the merits in detail at the bail stage while imposing safeguards.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405411</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>