<?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 (10) TMI 582 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413530</link>
    <description>In NDPS cases involving commercial quantity, regular bail is barred unless the twin conditions in Section 37 are met: the court must have reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit an offence while on bail. Here, recovery of commercial quantity from a co-accused, together with call detail records and WhatsApp communications suggesting contact and involvement in the supply chain, was treated as insufficient to overcome the statutory embargo. The contested admissibility of the Section 67 statement did not change the result. Bail was declined because the statutory threshold for release was not satisfied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Oct 2021 09:13:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=658527" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (10) TMI 582 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413530</link>
      <description>In NDPS cases involving commercial quantity, regular bail is barred unless the twin conditions in Section 37 are met: the court must have reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit an offence while on bail. Here, recovery of commercial quantity from a co-accused, together with call detail records and WhatsApp communications suggesting contact and involvement in the supply chain, was treated as insufficient to overcome the statutory embargo. The contested admissibility of the Section 67 statement did not change the result. Bail was declined because the statutory threshold for release was not satisfied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413530</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>