<?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>2026 (6) TMI 696 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793315</link>
    <description>In commercial quantity NDPS matters, bail cannot be sustained unless the court records satisfaction of Section 37&#039;s twin conditions: reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is not likely to reoffend on bail. The SC held that the High Court had bypassed this mandatory statutory bar, so the bail order was unsustainable and was set aside. The Court also held that about 1 year and 7 months of custody did not amount to prolonged incarceration sufficient to override the NDPS restrictions, especially where similar antecedents weighed against the likelihood-of-reoffending requirement. Bail was therefore refused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2026 12:42:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=906681" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (6) TMI 696 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793315</link>
      <description>In commercial quantity NDPS matters, bail cannot be sustained unless the court records satisfaction of Section 37&#039;s twin conditions: reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is not likely to reoffend on bail. The SC held that the High Court had bypassed this mandatory statutory bar, so the bail order was unsustainable and was set aside. The Court also held that about 1 year and 7 months of custody did not amount to prolonged incarceration sufficient to override the NDPS restrictions, especially where similar antecedents weighed against the likelihood-of-reoffending requirement. Bail was therefore refused.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793315</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>