<?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>2022 (6) TMI 486 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423645</link>
    <description>Discretionary bail may be refused in grave narcotics cases where the record discloses a strong prima facie case and the investigation remains incomplete. Interception of a Pakistani fishing vessel, recovery of a very large quantity of heroin, and surrounding circumstances pointing to a coordinated sea-route smuggling operation weighed against release. The petitioner&#039;s alleged presence near the incident, claimed radio communication, pending investigation, framing of charges, and absconding co-accused were treated as factors supporting continued custody. The petitioner&#039;s explanation was left for trial, and interference with the order refusing bail was declined.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Jun 2022 10:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=681723" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (6) TMI 486 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423645</link>
      <description>Discretionary bail may be refused in grave narcotics cases where the record discloses a strong prima facie case and the investigation remains incomplete. Interception of a Pakistani fishing vessel, recovery of a very large quantity of heroin, and surrounding circumstances pointing to a coordinated sea-route smuggling operation weighed against release. The petitioner&#039;s alleged presence near the incident, claimed radio communication, pending investigation, framing of charges, and absconding co-accused were treated as factors supporting continued custody. The petitioner&#039;s explanation was left for trial, and interference with the order refusing bail was declined.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423645</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>