<?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>2015 (11) TMI 1900 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312904</link>
    <description>In NDPS cases governed by Section 36-A(4), the default investigation period can be extended to 180 days on a timely application supported by a Public Prosecutor&#039;s report showing progress and reasons for further detention, and notice to the accused; on that basis, statutory bail under Section 167(2) was unavailable in the first matter. Where the investigation period had been validly extended and the challan was filed within time, statutory bail also failed in the second matter. Regular bail was refused because of repeated involvement in NDPS cases, pendency of another NDPS trial, and the seriousness of the allegations, which did not satisfy the stricter NDPS bail standard.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Mar 2024 17:53:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=746827" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (11) TMI 1900 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312904</link>
      <description>In NDPS cases governed by Section 36-A(4), the default investigation period can be extended to 180 days on a timely application supported by a Public Prosecutor&#039;s report showing progress and reasons for further detention, and notice to the accused; on that basis, statutory bail under Section 167(2) was unavailable in the first matter. Where the investigation period had been validly extended and the challan was filed within time, statutory bail also failed in the second matter. Regular bail was refused because of repeated involvement in NDPS cases, pendency of another NDPS trial, and the seriousness of the allegations, which did not satisfy the stricter NDPS bail standard.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312904</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>