<?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>2025 (6) TMI 1161 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773048</link>
    <description>Arrest was held not vitiated where the notices communicated the basic facts constituting the grounds of arrest, including possession, transportation and suspected dealing in heroin, and where relatives or nominated persons were also informed by notice and telephone. In the absence of reliable material showing deliberate or prejudicial delay, the constitutional and statutory safeguards under Article 22(1) and Sections 47 and 48 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 were treated as substantially complied with. In a commercial-quantity NDPS matter, the petitioners also failed to overcome the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, so bail was refused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Jun 2025 09:04:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=829847" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (6) TMI 1161 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773048</link>
      <description>Arrest was held not vitiated where the notices communicated the basic facts constituting the grounds of arrest, including possession, transportation and suspected dealing in heroin, and where relatives or nominated persons were also informed by notice and telephone. In the absence of reliable material showing deliberate or prejudicial delay, the constitutional and statutory safeguards under Article 22(1) and Sections 47 and 48 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 were treated as substantially complied with. In a commercial-quantity NDPS matter, the petitioners also failed to overcome the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, so bail was refused.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773048</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>