<?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 (5) TMI 1471 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305086</link>
    <description>Commercial quantity seizure under the NDPS Act triggered the stringent bail bar under Section 37, requiring the accused to satisfy the statutory threshold for release. On the facts stated, the petitioner failed to establish the conditions needed to overcome that restriction, so bail was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Nov 2022 17:50:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=695887" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (5) TMI 1471 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305086</link>
      <description>Commercial quantity seizure under the NDPS Act triggered the stringent bail bar under Section 37, requiring the accused to satisfy the statutory threshold for release. On the facts stated, the petitioner failed to establish the conditions needed to overcome that restriction, so bail was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305086</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>