SECTION 37 OF NDPS ACT: IRRATIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON BAIL NEED AMENDMENT FOR JUSTICE? (AUGUST 2020) скачать в хорошем качестве

SECTION 37 OF NDPS ACT: IRRATIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON BAIL NEED AMENDMENT FOR JUSTICE? (AUGUST 2020)

#Section37NDPS #NDPSAct #RestrictionOnBailNDPS SECTION 37 OF NDPS ACT NOT A LEGALLY SOUND PROVISION. Please watch the following 3 videos also on NDPS Act. Controversy with the summoning law in Drug Case.    • Summons U/S 67 NDPS Act to start Enquiry: ...   Why Bail is difficult in Rhea Chakraborty case?    • रिया को क्यों गिरफ्तार किया गया और इस मामल...   SECTION 50 OF NDPS ACT IS THE BEST DEFENSE IN BAIL TRIAL OR APPEAL?    • SECTION 50 OF NDPS ACT IS THE BEST DEFENSE...   Why justice does not required proof of innocence before bail? We all know that bail is so difficult in NDPS Case? Even interim bail for genuine reasons is made difficult. Sometimes we succeed as the lady luck smiles on us that only in case of interim bail. In this video, we will try to explore to better chances for bail. STATE OF KERALA vs. RAJESH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 154­157/ 2020 decided by SCwherein bail granted by Kerala High Court in NDPS matter on the parity ground was challenged by state. Supreme Court cancelled the bail order on the ground that the order of HC did not comply the conditions of Section 37 of Act. Second case: In "Hira Singh Vs. Union of India" Case, Supreme Court decided the reference for considering the legality of a judgment of in " E. Micheal Raj v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau" (2008). In Micheal Raj Case, it was held that for deciding the commercial amount of drugs, only pure amount was to considered and the neutral material was to be excluded. This decision was reversed now and SC held that while assessing the quantity of contraband from a mixture, the neutral substances shall also be taken into account. Section 54 of the NDPS Act calls for a presumption that the accused has committed an offence about the material that is found in his possession until and unless the contrary is proved. SC in Saiyad Mohd. Saiyad Umar Saiyed & Ors. Vs. The State of Gujrat, [1995 SCC (3) 610] stated – “ Section 54 of the NDPS Act shifts the onus of proving his innocence upon the accused. The safeguard u/s37 is more ridiculous that the court has be satisfied that the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. A provision pari materia in Prevention of Money laundering Act has been declared unconstitutional by SC in 2017 AIR (SC) 5500 – Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India. While dealing with the present case, Supreme Court heavily relied on its earlier judgment in Union of India Vs. Ram Samujh &Ors [ 1999(9) SCC 429].SC set aside the order of HC saying that the order can not sustain as the court did not give finding of its satisfaction on the two points mandated by 37. #LegalOutlook #DilipSinghAdvocate Subscribe to LEGAL OUTLOOK… BY DILIP SINGH for update on the legal issues and discussion on Constitution of India and other Laws important from the public perspective, legal fraternity, judiciary preparation and other competitive exams. Make sure to enable Notifications for new upload, just PRESS THE BELL ICON next to the Subscribe button! Dilip Singh is an advocate, based in Delhi and practicing in Supreme Court of India and various High Courts, NCLT, NCLAT, National Consumer Commission. Practicing law is a seamless journey. It has offered Dilip Singh great opportunities to learn from court, opposite counsel, clients and from every person who come in contact. He is very fond of reading, discussing and writing on Constitution of India. He shares his views and discuss law in his videos. This is a humble effort to share legal informations with young lawyers. Please be part of an information sharing platform of laws and legal. Please share your views on this video in comment section. If you want to share nay information, please write to me. My mail id is contact.dilipsingh@gmail.com