• Sat. Oct 24th, 2026
    • '

    Tag: section 29 NDPS

    Rajasthan High Court, which directed Shriram General Insurance to pay compensation to a minor injured in a goods vehicle and recover it from the owner and driver
    Rajasthan High Court, which directed Shriram General Insurance to pay compensation to a minor injured in a goods vehicle and recover it from the owner and driver
    Rajasthan High CourtHigh Court

    Rajasthan High Court Discharges NDPS Accused: Bare Allegation Of ‘Cooperation’ Cannot Supply Ingredients Of Section 29

    The Rajasthan High Court has discharged a distant brother-in-law of an NDPS co-accused, holding that a bare assertion that he ‘cooperated’ with the principal accused, resting on co-accused statements under Section 67, cannot supply the ingredients of Section 29.

    author
    Major Bail Ruling| One Coordinate Bench of High Court Can Revoke Bail Granted By Another Coordinate Bench If Facts Were Concealed: Supreme Court
    Major Bail Ruling| One Coordinate Bench of High Court Can Revoke Bail Granted By Another Coordinate Bench If Facts Were Concealed: Supreme Court
    Supreme Court

    Major Bail Ruling| One Coordinate Bench of High Court Can Revoke Bail Granted By Another Coordinate Bench If Facts Were Concealed: Supreme Court

    The Supreme Court held that a coordinate bench of a High Court may revoke bail granted by another coordinate bench if it is shown that the accused secured bail by concealing or misrepresenting material facts. The ruling came in a case involving offences under the NDPS Act.

    author
    Separate Punishments are Allowed But Multiple Fines Must Run Concurrently In Concurrent Sentences : Supreme Court on NDPS Sentencing Rules
    Separate Punishments are Allowed But Multiple Fines Must Run Concurrently In Concurrent Sentences : Supreme Court on NDPS Sentencing Rules
    Supreme CourtHeadlines

    Separate Punishments are Allowed But Multiple Fines Must Run Concurrently In Concurrent Sentences : Supreme Court on NDPS Sentencing Rules

    The Supreme Court held that distinct NDPS offences can attract separate punishments. However, when sentences run concurrently, fines must also be concurrent, preventing multiple fines for the same transaction and avoiding cumulative penalties.

    author