<?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 (6) TMI 1149 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308355</link>
    <description>Under the NDPS Act, bail was refused because the Court treated the offence as grave and the seized contraband as high in quantity, attracting the statutory restriction on bail under Section 37. The Court held that this bar prevented enlargement on bail on the facts presented. The request to seek expert opinion by sending the contraband for forensic analysis remained only a limited course before the Trial Court and did not affect the bail result.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Jun 2023 21:42:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=716998" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (6) TMI 1149 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308355</link>
      <description>Under the NDPS Act, bail was refused because the Court treated the offence as grave and the seized contraband as high in quantity, attracting the statutory restriction on bail under Section 37. The Court held that this bar prevented enlargement on bail on the facts presented. The request to seek expert opinion by sending the contraband for forensic analysis remained only a limited course before the Trial Court and did not affect the bail result.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308355</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>