<?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>2016 (2) TMI 1404 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466358</link>
    <description>Bail under Section 439 CrPC was considered in a prosecution involving recovery of about 20 kg of charas, treated as commercial quantity and therefore subject to the restrictive bar in Section 37 of the NDPS Act. In such cases, release is permissible only if the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and will not commit an offence while on bail. Parity with a co-accused was held to be only a relevant factor and not a substitute for satisfaction of the mandatory twin conditions, especially where the earlier bail order did not reflect due consideration of Section 37. Bail was refused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2026 22:11:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=884005" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (2) TMI 1404 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466358</link>
      <description>Bail under Section 439 CrPC was considered in a prosecution involving recovery of about 20 kg of charas, treated as commercial quantity and therefore subject to the restrictive bar in Section 37 of the NDPS Act. In such cases, release is permissible only if the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and will not commit an offence while on bail. Parity with a co-accused was held to be only a relevant factor and not a substitute for satisfaction of the mandatory twin conditions, especially where the earlier bail order did not reflect due consideration of Section 37. Bail was refused.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466358</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>