<?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>2000 (7) TMI 92 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46179</link>
    <description>In an NDPS bail matter, the Court held that the Section 37 bar could not operate unless the prosecution prima facie showed that the recovered material matched the scheduled description of Diazepam; a laboratory report stating only that the sample tested positive for Diazepam was insufficient. The Court also rejected foreign nationality as an independent ground to deny bail where no prima facie case was established. Bail was therefore granted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 31 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Jul 2010 13:23:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84705" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (7) TMI 92 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46179</link>
      <description>In an NDPS bail matter, the Court held that the Section 37 bar could not operate unless the prosecution prima facie showed that the recovered material matched the scheduled description of Diazepam; a laboratory report stating only that the sample tested positive for Diazepam was insufficient. The Court also rejected foreign nationality as an independent ground to deny bail where no prima facie case was established. Bail was therefore granted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46179</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>