<?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>2024 (12) TMI 1040 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763460</link>
    <description>Regular bail under the NDPS Act was refused because the prosecution involved commercial quantity recovery and prima facie material connected the petitioner with the offence. The Court held that alleged contradictions in the charge-sheet were matters for trial, and prolonged custody alone did not justify release where statutory bail restrictions were not satisfied. Filing of the charge-sheet did not, by itself, weaken the bar on bail at this stage.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Jun 2025 14:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=783752" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (12) TMI 1040 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763460</link>
      <description>Regular bail under the NDPS Act was refused because the prosecution involved commercial quantity recovery and prima facie material connected the petitioner with the offence. The Court held that alleged contradictions in the charge-sheet were matters for trial, and prolonged custody alone did not justify release where statutory bail restrictions were not satisfied. Filing of the charge-sheet did not, by itself, weaken the bar on bail at this stage.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763460</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>