<?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>2023 (12) TMI 1366 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458471</link>
    <description>In NDPS prosecutions involving commercial quantity, regular bail remains subject to the stringent twin conditions of Section 37, and recovery material arising from disclosure can be used to connect the accused with the offence. Recoveries from the Narela flat and Foreign Post Office parcels, together with WhatsApp chats and a Section 65B certificate, were treated as incriminating material. The challenge based on Section 42 was regarded as a matter for trial, while Section 52-A was construed as requiring prompt compliance but not a mandatory time limit; delayed compliance alone did not justify bail absent demonstrated prejudice. On this material, the applicant could not satisfy the Section 37 conditions and bail was declined.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Oct 2024 19:15:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=776131" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (12) TMI 1366 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458471</link>
      <description>In NDPS prosecutions involving commercial quantity, regular bail remains subject to the stringent twin conditions of Section 37, and recovery material arising from disclosure can be used to connect the accused with the offence. Recoveries from the Narela flat and Foreign Post Office parcels, together with WhatsApp chats and a Section 65B certificate, were treated as incriminating material. The challenge based on Section 42 was regarded as a matter for trial, while Section 52-A was construed as requiring prompt compliance but not a mandatory time limit; delayed compliance alone did not justify bail absent demonstrated prejudice. On this material, the applicant could not satisfy the Section 37 conditions and bail was declined.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458471</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>