Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagjit Singh @ Jagga vs State Of Punjab on 29 August, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:111411
CRM-M-37938-2024 (O&M), CRM-M-23062-2024 & CRM-M-20132-2024
- 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
108+110
Date of decision: 29.08.2024
1. CRM-M-37938-2024 (O&M)
JAGJIT SINGH @ JAGGA ....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent
2. CRM-M-23062-2024
HARDEEP SINGH ....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent
3. CRM-M-20132-2024
SUKHVIR SINGH ALIAS SEERA ....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present : Mr. A.K. Goel, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRM-M-37938-2024.
Mr. Liaqat Ali, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRM-M-23062-2024.
Mr. Vinod Ghai, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate &
Mr. Amritpal Singh Mann, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRM-M-20132-2024.
Dr. Buta Singh Bairagi, Advocate
for the complainant.
1 of 14
::: Downloaded on - 31-08-2024 21:28:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:111411
CRM-M-37938-2024 (O&M), CRM-M-23062-2024 & CRM-M-20132-2024
- 2-
KULDEEP TIWARI. J.(Oral)
CRM-33369-2024
1. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and
the application is preponed from 21.10.2024, to today itself, and the main case i.e.
CRM-M-37938-2024, is taken up on Board for hearing.
CRM-M-37938-2024, CRM-M-23062-2024 & CRM-M-20132-2024
2. In all the three petitions, the petitioners craves for indulgence of this
Court for they being enlarged on regular bail, in case FIR No.71 dated 19.09.2023
under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC, and Section 212 IPC (added later on), read
with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station
Mehna, Moga, Tehsil and District Moga, therefore, being amenable by common
decision, same are taken up together.
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS
3. In the instant case, the prosecution agency was set into motion on a
complaint made by one Karamjit Kaur alias Navdeep Kaur Gill, wherein, she alleged
that two unknown persons, entered into their house, and open fired gunshots, which
had hit her husband-Baljinder Singh, and consequently he succumbed to his injuries.
She further alleged that when she was taking her injured husband to the hospital, her
injured husband in front of some other persons, told her that the assailants were sent
by Sukhvir Singh alias Seera, Hardeep Singh alias Deepu, Jagjit Singh alias Jagga
and Gurcharan Singh Sidhu. On the basis of above, the FIR (supra), was registered
against abovenamed persons, which includes the present petitioners. In the instant
case, the investigation was carried out by the Special Investigating Team (SIT), and
a total of 16 persons were found to be involved in the commission of the instant
2 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 31-08-2024 21:28:44 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:111411
CRM-M-37938-2024 (O&M), CRM-M-23062-2024 & CRM-M-20132-2024
– 3-
crime, and out of these 13 have already been arrested, and three are on run.
4. What surfaced from the investigation that no role of Sukhvir Singh alias
Seera, Jagjit Singh and Hardeep Singh (present petitioners), and other co-accused
Gurcharan Singh Sidhu, was established, and the the head of the SIT concerned, in
its report dated 08.12.2023 (Annexure P-3), recorded as under:-
“Besides this, call details of mobile numbers 98142- 91798, 98159-
91798, 98145-00648, 89868-40783, 99144-08585 and 89068-67000 of
Sukhveer Singh @ Seera, Hardeep Singh @ Deepu, Jagjit Singh @
Jagga residents of Dalla and Gurcharan Singh @ Sidhu resident of
Takhanvadh from 17.09.2023 to 19.09.2023 were obtained and
perused. On perusal of call detail reports also, no talks have been found
to have been made by above said four accused with persons committing
the murder murder.”
5. The report was then sent to the Deputy District Attorney (Legal), who
after perusal thereof, opined vide Annexure P-4, dated 14.12.2023, that after making
entry regarding the above investigation, the investigating agency may file an
application under Section 169 Cr.P.C. for getting the release of the above named
four persons from the custody, as qua them no evidence was found by the
prosecution. The relevant extract reads as under:-
“I have carefully perused the report dated 08.12.2023 of Special
Investigation Team and documents attached. In the report of SIT, it has
been written that during investigation no evidence has come on record
against accused Sukhveer Singh @ Seera son of Gurtek Singh, Hardeep
Singh @ Deepu son of Jaspal Singh, Jagjit Singh @ Jagga son of
Gurnek Singh residents of Dalla and Gurcharan Singh @ Sidhu son of
Buta Singh resident of Takhanvadh District Moga. Keeping in view the
above said facts mentioned in the report of SIT, as per my opinion after
making entry regarding above said investigation in case at this stage3 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 31-08-2024 21:28:44 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:111411CRM-M-37938-2024 (O&M), CRM-M-23062-2024 & CRM-M-20132-2024
– 4-
and in the event of above said persons to be in custody, application
under section 169 Cr.P.C is liable to be filed in concerned court for
getting them released from custody and Arshdeep Singh @ Arsh Dalla
son of Charanjit Singh resident of village Dalla is required to be named
as accused in the present case. ”
6. Thereupon, the Superintendent of Police, Moga, on 15.12.2023
(Annexure P-5), though concur with the inquiry report of the SIT, and opinion of the
Deputy District Attorney (Legal), dated 08.12.2023 (Annexure P-4), however, he
opined in the report (supra), that it would be better if the prosecution agency file a
final report qua the above named persons, so that they may not get the benefit of
default bail, however, on receipt of the FSL report, supplementary challan was
presented. The relevant extract of the opinion of the Deputy District Attorney
(Legal), reads as under:
“………….In these circumstances, as per my opinion, it will be
appropriate to submit report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C in court against the
aforesaid accused on the basis of facts of the case for orders so that
accused may not get benefit of compulsive bail u/s 167(2) Cr.P.C. After
evidence on record and receipt of report of F.S.L. Lab Bathinda, it will
be appropriate to present supplementary challan under section 173(8)
Cr.P.C onits basis.”
7. Thereupon, the Deputy District Attorney (Legal), Moga, opined to file
the final report/challan, and to file a supplementary challan, after the receipt of the
FSL report from Bathinda.
8. It is not under dispute that now the FSL report has been received. Even
the short reply, dated 12.08.2024, which has been filed, by way of an affidavit of
Sh.Amarjit singh, DSP, Dharamkot, District Moga, which is ordered to be taken on
4 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 31-08-2024 21:28:44 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:111411
CRM-M-37938-2024 (O&M), CRM-M-23062-2024 & CRM-M-20132-2024
– 5-
record, reflects that after receipt of the FSL report, now the supplementary challan
has been filed.
9. The reply reflects that no data was found, which can relate the present
petitioners with the instant crime. The relevant extract of the reply reads as under:
“16. That it is submitted here that vide report no.0079/DFL/2023, the
Digital Forensic Lab, Bathinda Range, Bathinda, it was reported that
during analysis no data related to murder was found. After receiving
said report, supplementary challan was presented before the Ld. Court
on 14.03.2024. Charge against petitioner and others have been framed
on 31.07.2024 and now case is fixed for 12.09.2024 for prosecution
evidence.”
10. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court has put a
specific query to learned State counsel, that once the FSL report (supra), reflects no
data connecting the present petitioners with the murder of the deceased-Baljinder
Singh, why the prosecution has not till date took a final decision with regard to the
accused persons (petitioners), specifically, when in the reply (supra), filed before
this Court, the stand of the prosecution is that till date there is no incriminating
evidence available against with the present petitioners, to which he answered that he
is yet to have instructions from the quarters concerned in this regard.
11. In view of the above, this Court vide order dated 13.08.2024, directed
the learned State counsel to file a specific reply, disclosing therein, about their final
opinion qua the present petitioners, on or before the next date of hearing.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS
12. The learned counsel for the petitioners, in his asking for the
5 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 31-08-2024 21:28:44 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:111411
CRM-M-37938-2024 (O&M), CRM-M-23062-2024 & CRM-M-20132-2024
– 6-
hereinabove extracted relief, has made the following submissions:-
(i) There is no incriminating evidence found by the prosecution
agency against the present petitioners, so far, and even the application
for discharge, with regard to the present petitioners have been moved
by the prosecution before the learned trial Court concerned,
therefore, further incarceration of the petitioners is totally
unwarranted;
(ii) Petitioners- Hardeep Singh @ Deepu and Sukhvir Singh @ Sira
have suffered incarceration of approximately 11 months, as on today,
and petitioner Jagjit Singh @ Jagga has suffered incarceration of
more than 09 months, as on today;
(iii) The final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., had already been
filed before the learned trial Court concerned;
(iv) Conclusion of trial will take long time, therefore, keeping the
petitioners behind the bars will not serve any purpose.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED STATE COUNSEL
13. Today, learned State counsel has filed a short affidavit dated
28.08.2024, of Sh. Gursharanjit Singh, PPS, Superintendent of Police (H), Moga, on
behalf of respondent-State. The same is taken on record. Copy of the same has been
supplied to the opposite counsel.
14. A perusal of the reply (supra), reflects that since no incriminating
evidence was found against the present petitioners, now the prosecution has filed a
supplementary final report, along with an application for discharge, which is now
6 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 31-08-2024 21:28:44 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:111411
CRM-M-37938-2024 (O&M), CRM-M-23062-2024 & CRM-M-20132-2024
– 7-
pending consideration before the learned trial Court concerned. The relevant extract
of the same reads as under:-
12.That it is further submitted here that, after perusing all the record, the
deponent submitted his report dated 19.08.2024 before the SSP, Moga that
during the investigation conducted by SIT, no evidence came on the file to
connect Sukhvir Singh @ Seera son of Gurtek Singh, Hardeep Singh @
Deepu son of Jaspal Singh, Jagjit Singh @ Jagga son of Gurmek Singh CA
residents of village Dala, Gurcharan Singh @ Sidhu resident of village
Takhanwadh District Moga with the crime. However, the then SHO, Police
Station Mehna had presented the challan in the present case on 18.12.2023
and charge against the accused has already been framed on 31.07.2024.
Whereas, as no evidence came on file to connect said persons with the crime,
during investigation conducted by the SIT, so they were liable to be get
discharged from the present case. So, at this stage the opinion from DDA (L),
Moga be obtain regarding discharge of said person from the present case.
13. That on the basis of report submitted by the deponent, the opinion from
Deputy DA (L), Moga was obtained. In his report dated 21.08.2024 DDA (L),
Moga opined that as per report of the deponent no evidence came on file
against said persons, so supplementary challan can be moved and any other
requisite application can also be moved. After obtaining the legal opinion
supplementary challan by mentioning the names of Sukhvir Singh Seera son
of Gurtek Singh, Hardeep Singh Deepu son of Jaspal Singh. Jagjit Singh
Gurcharan Singh Jagga son of Gurnek Singh residents of village Dala. Sidhu
resident of village Takhanwadh District Moga, in column no. 2 was
presented before the Ld. Court on 22.08.2024. Apart from this on same day,
application for discharging Sukhvir Singh @ Seera son of Gurtek Singh,
Hardeep Singh @ Deepu son of Jaspal Singh, Jagjit Singh @ Jagga son of
Gurnek Singh residents of village Dala, Gurcharan Singh @ Sidhu resident
of village Takhanwadh District Moga has been moved before the Ld. Trial
Court and now same is fixed for 28.08.2024.
15. Learned State counsel has further placed on record the custody
7 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 31-08-2024 21:28:44 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:111411
CRM-M-37938-2024 (O&M), CRM-M-23062-2024 & CRM-M-20132-2024
– 8-
certificates qua the petitioners, as issued by the Central Jail Faridkot. The same are
taken on record. A perusal of the custody certificate reveals that the petitioners-
Hardeep Singh @ Deepu and Sukhvir Singh @ Sira have suffered incarceration of
10 months and 29 days, as on today, and petitioner Jagjit Singh @ Jagga has
suffered incarceration of 09 months and 02 days, as on today. Learned State counsel
on instructions, imparted to him by Inspector Arshpreet Grewal, submits that after
conclusion of the investigation, the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., had
already been filed before the learned trial Court concerned.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE COMPLAINANT
16. Although the learned counsel for the complainant vociferously opposed
the grant of regular bail to the present petitioners, but he fairly submits that the
investigating agency has filed the discharge application qua all the accused persons.
ANALYSIS
17. Before embarking upon the process of evaluating the arguments
addressed by the learned counsels for the parties and penning down any opinion
upon the instant petition, it is deemed imperative to capture an overview of some
significant legal propositions.
18. “Bail is the Rule and Jail is an Exception”. This basic principle of
criminal jurisprudence was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, way back in
1978, in its landmark judgment titled “State of Rajasthan V. Balchand alias
Baliay”, 1977 AIR 2447, 1978 SCR (1) 535. This principle finds its roots in one
of the most distinguished fundamental rights, as enshrined in Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. Though the underlying objective behind detention of a
person is to ensure easy availability of an accused for trial, without any
8 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 31-08-2024 21:28:44 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:111411
CRM-M-37938-2024 (O&M), CRM-M-23062-2024 & CRM-M-20132-2024
– 9-
inconvenience, however, in case the presence of an accused can be secured
otherwise, then detention is not compulsory.
19. The right to a speedy trial is one of the rights of a detained person.
However, while deciding application for regular bail, the Courts shall also take
into consideration the fundamental precept of criminal jurisprudence, which is
“the presumption of innocence”, besides the gravity of offence(s) involved.
20. In “Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab”, (1980) 2 SCC 565
at 586-588, the purpose of granting bail is set out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
with great felicity as follows:-
“27. It is not necessary to refer to decisions which deal with the
right to ordinary bail because that right does not furnish an exact
parallel to the right to anticipatory bail. It is, however, interesting
that as long back as in 1924 it was held by the High Court of
Calcutta in Nagendra v. King Emperor, AIR 1924 Calcutta 476
(479, 480) that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the
accused at the trial, that the proper test to be applied in the solution
of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether
it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial and that it is
indisputable that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. In two
other cases which, significantly, are the ‘Meerut Conspiracy cases
observations are to be found regarding the right to bail which
deserve a special mention. In K.N. Joglekar v. Emperor, AIR 1931
Allahabad 504 (SB) it was observed, while dealing with Section 498
which corresponds to the present Section 439 of the Code, that it
conferred upon the Sessions Judge or the High Court wide powers
to grant bail which were not handicapped by the restrictions in the
preceding Section 497 which corresponds to the present Section
437. It was observed by the Court that there was no hard and fast
rule and no inflexible principle governing the exercise of the
discretion conferred by Section 498 and that the only principle9 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 31-08-2024 21:28:44 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:111411CRM-M-37938-2024 (O&M), CRM-M-23062-2024 & CRM-M-20132-2024
– 10-
which was established was that the discretion should be exercised
judiciously. In Emperor v. H.L. Hutchinson, AIR 1931 Allahabad
356 at p. 358 it was said that it was very unwise to make an attempt
to lay down any particular rules which bind the High Court, having
regard to the fact that the legislature itself left the discretion of the
Court unfettered. According to the High Court, the variety of cases
that may arise from time to time cannot be safely classified and it is
dangerous to make an attempt to classify the cases and to say that in
particular classes a bail may be granted but not in other classes. It
was observed that the principle to be deduced from the various
sections in the Criminal Procedure Code was that grant of bail is
the rule and refusal is the exception. An accused person who enjoys
freedom is in a much better position to look after his case and to
properly defend himself than if he were in custody. As a presumably
innocent person he is therefore entitled to freedom and every
opportunity to look after his own case. A presumably innocent
person must have his freedom to enable him to establish his
innocence.
XX XX XX
29. In Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) (1978) 1 SCC 118 it
was observed by Goswami, J., who spoke for the Court, that “there
cannot be an inexorable formula in the matter of granting bail. The
facts and circumstances of each case will govern the exercise of
judicial discretion in granting or cancelling bail”.
30. In American Jurisprudence (2d, Vol. 8, page 806, para 39) it is
stated :
“Where the granting of bail lies within the discretion of the
court, the granting or denial is regulated, to a large extent,
by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Since
the object of the detention or imprisonment of the accused is
to secure his appearance and submission to the jurisdiction
and the judgment of the court, the primary inquiry is whether
a recognizance or bond would effect that end.”
It is thus clear that the question whether to grant bail or not
10 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 31-08-2024 21:28:44 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:111411
CRM-M-37938-2024 (O&M), CRM-M-23062-2024 & CRM-M-20132-2024
– 11-
depends for its answer upon a variety of circumstances, the
cumulative effect of which must enter into the judicial verdict. Any
one single circumstance cannot be treated as of universal validity or
as necessarily justifying the grant or refusal of bail.”
21. Also, in “Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others Versus Public
Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh”, 1978 AIR (Supreme Court) 429,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, speaking through Krishna Iyer, J., has enunciated the
principles of bail thus :
“9. Thus the legal principle and practice validate the court
considering the likelihood of the applicant interfering with witnesses
for the prosecution or otherwise polluting the process of justice. It is
not only traditional but rational, in this context, to enquire into the
antecedents of a man who is applying for bail to find whether he has
a bad record-particularly a record which suggests that he is likely
to commit serious offences while on bail. In regard to habitual, it is
part of criminological history that a thoughtless bail order has
enabled the bailee to exploit the opportunity to inflict further crimes
on the member of society. Bail discretion, on the basis of evidence
about the criminal record of a defendant, is therefore not an
exercise in irrelevance.
10. The significance and sweep of Article 21 make the deprivation of
liberty a matter of grave concern and permissible only when the law
authorising it is reasonable, even-handed and geared to he goals of
community good and State necessity spelt out in Article 19. Indeed,
the considerations I have set out as criteria are germane to the
constitutional proposition I have deduced. Reasonableness
postulates intelligent care and predicates that deprivation of
freedom by refusal of bail is not for punitive purpose but for the bi-
focal interests of justice – to the individual involved and society
affected.
11. We must weight the contrary factors to answer the test the
reasonableness, subject to the need for securing the presence of the11 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 31-08-2024 21:28:44 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:111411CRM-M-37938-2024 (O&M), CRM-M-23062-2024 & CRM-M-20132-2024
– 12-
bail applicant. It makes sense to assume that a man on bail has a
better chance to prepare of present his case than one remanded in
custody. And if public justice is to be promoted. mechanical
detention should be demoted. In the United States, which has a
constitutional perspective close to ours, the function of bail is
limited, ‘community roots’ of the applicant are stressed and, after
the Vera Foundation’s Manhattan Bail Project, monetary suretyship
is losing ground. The considerable public expense in keeping in
custody where no danger of disappearance or disturbance can arise,
is not a negligible consideration. Equally important is the
deplorable condition, verging on the inhuman, of our sub-jails, that
the unrewarding cruelty and expensive custody of avoidable
incarceration makes refusal of bail unreasonable and a policy
favouring release justly sensible.
12. A few other weighty factors deserve reference. All deprivation of
liberty is validated by social defence and individual correction
along an anti-criminal direction. Public justice is central to the
whole scheme of bail law. Fleeing justice must be forbidden but
punitive harshness should be minimised. Restorative devices to
redeem the man, even through community service, meditative drill,
study classes or other resources should be innovated, and playing
foul with public peace by tampering with evidence, intimidating
witnesses or committing offences while on judicially sanctioned ‘free
enterprise’, should be provided against. No seeker of justice shall
play confidence tricks on the court or community. Thus, conditions
may be hung around bail orders, not to cripple but to protect. Such
is the holistic jurisdiction and humanistic orientation invoked by the
judicial discretion correlated to the values of our Constitution.
13. Viewed from this perspective, we gain a better insight into the
rules of the game. When a person, charged with a grave offence,
has been acquitted at a stage, has the intermediate acquittal
pertinence to a bail plea when the appeal before this Court pends?
Yes, it has. The panic which might prompt the accused to jump12 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 31-08-2024 21:28:44 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:111411CRM-M-37938-2024 (O&M), CRM-M-23062-2024 & CRM-M-20132-2024
– 13-
the gauntlet of justice is less, having enjoyed the confidence of
the court’s verdit once. Concurrent holdings of guilt have the
opposite effect. Again, the ground for denial of provisional
release becomes weaker when the fact stares us in the face that a
fair finding if that be so – of innocence has been recorded by one
court. It may not be conclusive, for the judgment of acquittal may
be ex facie wrong, the likelihood of desperate reprisal, if
enlarged, may be a deterrent and his own safety may be more in
prison than in the vengeful village where feuds have provoked the
violent offence. It depends. Antecedents of the man and socio-
geographical circumstances have a bearing only from this angle.
Police exaggerations of prospective misconduct of the accused, if
enlarged, must be soberly sized up lest danger of excesses and
injustice creep subtly into the discretionary curial technique. Bad
record and policy prediction of criminal prospects to invalidate
the bail plea are admissible in principle but shall not stampede the
court into a complacent refusal.”
22. This Court has examined the instant petitions on the touchstone of the
hereinabove extracted settled legal principle(s) of law and is of the considered
opinion that the instant petitions are amenable for being allowed.
23. The reason for forming the above inference emanates from the factum
that:- (i) As on date, there is no incriminating evidence against the present
petitioners; (ii) An application for discharge filed by prosecution itself qua the
present petitioners, is pending consideration before the learned Magistrate
concerned; (iii) Petitioners- Hardeep Singh @ Deepu and Sukhvir Singh @ Sira
have suffered incarceration of 10 months and 29 days, as on today, and petitioner
Jagjit Singh @ Jagga has suffered incarceration of 09 months and 02 days, as on
today; (iv) The final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C had already been filed; (v) No
13 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 31-08-2024 21:28:44 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:111411
CRM-M-37938-2024 (O&M), CRM-M-23062-2024 & CRM-M-20132-2024
– 14-
fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners behind the bars; (vi)
Trial is not likely to conclude anytime soon.
FINAL ORDER
24. Considering the hereinabove made discussion, this Court deems it fit
and appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioners. Therefore,
without commenting upon the merits and circumstances of the present case, the
present petitions are allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on
furnishing of bail bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of concerned Chief
Judicial Magistrate/trial Court/Duty Magistrate.
25. However, anything observed here-in-above shall have no effect on
the merits of the trial, and is only meant for deciding the present petitions.
26. All pending application(s) stand disposed of accordingly.
27. However, it is clarified that if in future, the petitioners are found
indulging in commission of similar offences, as are involved herein, the
respondent-State shall be at liberty to make an appropriate application seeking
cancellation of regular bail, as granted by this Court.
(KULDEEP TIWARI)
29.08.2024 JUDGE
amandeep
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
14 of 14
::: Downloaded on - 31-08-2024 21:28:44 :::