Legally Bharat

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Suresh Kumar Bajaj vs State Of Punjab on 5 September, 2024

Author: Kirti Singh

Bench: Kirti Singh

                                 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116586




CRM-M-41190-2024 (O&M)                                                             1



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                          CHANDIGARH


Sr. No.282                                           CRM-M-41190-2024 (O&M)
                                                    Date of decision: 05.09.2024
Suresh Kumar Bajaj

                                                               ..... Petitioner

                                      VERSUS

State of Punjab
                                                                ..... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH

Present:      Mr. Sunil Chadha, Senior Advocate with
              Mr. Akshay Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner.

              Mr. Vinay Kumar, DAG, Punjab.

              Mr. Charanpal Singh Bagri, Advocate for the complainant.

                                          *****
KIRTI SINGH, J.(Oral)

1. Apprehending arrest the petitioner has filed this petition under

Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of

anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No.123 dated 19.11.2022, under

Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 and 120-B of IPC (Section 406 IPC added

later on), registered at Police Station Mullanpur, District S.A.S. Nagar,

Mohali.

FIRST INFROMATION REPORT

2 The contents of the FIR be read as under:-

“Copy of Letter No.4720/5A/ S.B./Investigation/SAS Nagar
dated 19.11.2022 from Superintendent of Police
(Investigation, District SAS Nagar to Senior Superintendent

1 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 08-09-2024 04:41:42 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116586

CRM-M-41190-2024 (O&M) 2

of Police, district SAS Nagar. No. 9036 CR./L/A-1 dated
18.11.2022 from Director Bureau of Investigation Punjab,
Chandigarh and letter No.7691/S.S.P./SAS Nagar dated
19.11.2022 regarding CRWP No.9767 of 2022 titled as
“Bahadur Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab & Others”

and complaint No.709/PC/SSP dated 26.02.2020,
1580/Special, SAS Nagar dated 24.11.2020 from Karamjit
Singh son of Ajaib Singh resident of Village Palheri, Tehsil
& District SAS Nagar. Sir, reference of office letter no.9036
C.R.L.A-1 dated 18.11.2022 of the office of Director
Bureau of Investigation Punjab, Chandigarh and your office
letter No.7691/S.S.P. dated 19.11.2022 on the above
mentioned subject. The applicant Karamjit Singh has
submitted one application no.709/P/S.S.P. dated 26.02.2020
against the opposite party President Suresh and other office
bearers of The Indian Cooperative House Building Society
and Manwinder Singh, Notary Public to SSP Sahib, SAS
Nagar. Thereafter, another application no.1580/Special/SSP
dated 24.11.2020 was submitted by above said Karamjit
Singh and other land owners. In both the applications, the
land owners had requested for taking legal action against
officiating members of the Society in connivance with each
other for trying to get CLU of their land by preparing forged
documents of the land owners. So that after getting approval
of the Colony from GMADA, they may be able to sell the
same further. The inquiry of the above said application was
conducted by Sh. Harmandeep Singh Hans, I.P.S.
Superintendent of Police (Investigation) SAS Nagar and
after conducting the inquiry, he submitted report vide
no.180/5/S./Sp (Investigation dated 25.11.2023) to your
good self. On perusal of this report, it has come to the light
that the complainant Karamjit Singh son of Ajaid Singh is
having total land measuring 53 kanals 18 marlas in village

2 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 08-09-2024 04:41:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116586

CRM-M-41190-2024 (O&M) 3

Palheri, hadbast no.173 Tehsil Kharar comprising in
Khewat No.119/115, Khatuni No.122, Khasr no.17//16 (8-

0), 17//17 (6-14), 17//18 (15-16), 17//23 (7-6), 17//24 (5-8),
17//25 (7-16), 17//31 (0-17), 28//7 (8-0), 28//14 (4-1) and
without consent of the applicant, the officials of the Indian
Cooperative House Building Society namely Suresh Kumar
Bajaj had prepared bogus consent latter of the complainant
for obtaining CLU, in which forged signatures of the
applicant as Karam Singh were made. Similarly, bogus
signatures and thumb impressions of 14 other people were
put in a well planned conspiracy and these forged consent
letters of their land were prepared without their consent and
it has been found that these were forged to obtain CLU and
by forging the signatures, the consent letters were prepared
in the year 2014 but the opposite party after joining the
investigating failed to produce any record or any evidence.
From it is clear that the office bearers of the company had
forged the documents and have committed fraud with the
real owners. Apart from it, the father’s name of the
witnesses have also been wrongly mentioned in the consent
letters so that the original witnesses may not be verified.
So, it is mentioned to register FIR against the office bearers
of the opposite party-Indian Cooperative House Building
Society Suresh Kumar Bajaj (President), Ashish Kamra
(Vice-President), Ashsish Sehgal (Secretary), Rajesh
Girdhar (Cashier) under Sections 406, 420,, 467, 468, 471,
120 IPC and for conducting investigation. This inquiry
report was sent to the DDA legal by the then Senior
Superintendent of Police, District SAS Nagar. DDA Legal,
SAS Nagar vide letter No.08/D.D.A Legal dated 09.01.2021
raised objections on this report and stated his report that the
application of the applicant, documents, statement and
inquiry of the inquiry officer Superintendent of Police

3 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 08-09-2024 04:41:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116586

CRM-M-41190-2024 (O&M) 4

(Investigation SAS Nagar Report No.180/5 S.S.P.,
Investigation dated 25.11.2020 has been proved. As per my
opinion, the officials of the authority, to whom these
consent letters were submitted be also joined in the inquiry
and certified copies of the consent letters be obtained from
them and detailed statements are required to be recorded.
He also submitted that FSL report regarding these forged
consent letters be also obtained and witnesses of the forged
consent letters be also joined in the inquiry so that the true
facts may come on record and correct legal opinion in this
regard can be given. Thereafter, the inquiry was again
marked to Sh. Vikram Brar, P.P.S. Superintendent of Police
Kharar-2, Mullanpur, SAS Nagar but the applicant party and
the opposite party failed to produce the original copies of
the documents used for obtaining CLU and nor original
copies of these consent letters for obtaining CLU are
available in the GMADA Department. So, the consent
letters used for obtaining CLU cannot be verified and a
report in this regard was submitted by him vide his office
letter no.404/5S/D.S.P. Kharar dated 13.12.2021 to the then
Senior Superintendent of Police, District SAS Nagar and the
same was sent to DA Legal SAS Nagar Mohali for legal
opinion. Sh. Sanjeev Batra, District Attorney (P) SAS Nagar
vide his letter no.2482/D.A.S.A.S Nagar dated 15.12.2021
has stated that no facts regarding misappropriating or
commission of fraud to usurp the land of the applicants has
come on record by the office bearers of the Society. Today
also, they are ready to pay the enhanced market rate to the
applicants. So, in my opinion no offence is made out against
the office bearers of the Society. Due to it a
recommendation was made by DA (P) Legal, SAS Nagar to
consign the applications submitted by the applicants. On the
basis of this opinion, the then SSP consigned these

4 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 08-09-2024 04:41:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116586

CRM-M-41190-2024 (O&M) 5

applications to the record room on 23.12.2021. Conclusion
report: On the basis of the inquiry conducted till date, it has
been found that the applicant has submitted application to
Senior Superintendent of Police District SAS Nagar bearing
application no.709/P.S.P. dated 26.02.2020 and application
no.1580/Special/S.S.P. dated 24.11.2020 for
misappropriating the land of the land owners by preparing
forged documents and tried to obtain CLU for getting
approval of colony from GMADA to sell it further by The
Indian Cooperative House Building Society Suresh Kumar
Bajaj (President), Ashish Kamra (Vice-President), Ajay
Sehgal (Secretary), Rajesh Girdhar (Cashier). These
applications were inquired into in the year 2020 by different
officials. The then Superintendent of Police (Investigation)
District SAS Nagar had recommended for registration of the
FIR for preparing forged documents and for further selling
their land by obtaining CLU and a recommendation was
made to Station House Officer Mullanpur, SAS Nagar on
24.11.2020 for registration of FIR against the office bearers
of the Indian Cooperative House Building Society namely
Suresh Kumar Bajaj (President), Ashish Kamra (Vice-
President), Ajay Sehgal (Secretary), Rajesh Girdhar
(Cashier) under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 IPC.
But DDA Legal, District SAS Nagar raised objections and
these applications as the consent documents were not got
verified with original copies by SL Phase-4 Mohali. But the
objections raised by the DDA Legal, District SAS Nagar
Mohali could not be complied with because the consent
letters or original documents could not be obtained from the
department and as such, the signature on the forged
documents could not be verified. Due to it the above said
applications were consigned to record room. But from the
inquiry conducted by you till date, it has transpired that the

5 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 08-09-2024 04:41:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116586

CRM-M-41190-2024 (O&M) 6

consent letters submitted in GMADA, Rehra Department
have been stated to be forged by the applicants. The original
copies of these consent letters have not been obtained. Apart
from it during the previous inquiries, the officials of the
company also failed to produce the original
documents/consent letters. From it, the matter appears to be
suspicious. It appears that the office bearers of the Indian
Cooperative House Building Society namely Suresh Kumar
Bajaj (President), Ashish Kamra (Vice-President), Ajay
Sehgal (Secretary), Rajesh Girdhar (Cashier) in connivance
with each other prepared forged consent letters of the
applicant to usurp their land and obtain CLU. From it, it is
clear that the office bearers of the Indian Cooperative House
Building Society namely Suresh Kumar Bajaj (President),
Ashish Kamra (Vice President), Ajay Sehgal (Secretary),
Rajesh Girdhar (Cashier) have committed offences under
sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 120-B IPC. Apart from it
as per the direction given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in ‘Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of UP and Others 2013’,
the FIR is required to be registered and investigation is
required to be conducted. So, if approved, FIR be registered
against the office bearers of the Indian Cooperative House
Building Society namely Suresh Kumar Bajaj (President),
Ashish Kamra (Vice-President), Ajay Sehgal (Secretary),
Rajesh Girdhar (Cashier) under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471,
472, 120-B IPC and investigation be conducted. Apart from
it, during investigation, if involvement of any other person
is found then requisite action shall be taken against him. An
appropriate order in this regard be issued to Station House
Officer, Mullanpur District SAS Nagar. The report is
submitted. Sd/- Amandeep 19/11/2022, Superintendent of
Police (Investigation) District SAS Nagar.”

6 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 08-09-2024 04:41:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116586

CRM-M-41190-2024 (O&M) 7

FACTS

3. The succinct factual narrative relevant for the disposal of the

instant petition is that a Society in the name of Indian Cooperative House

Building Society (hereinafter referred to as the Society) came to be

registered under the Societies Registration Act. Amongst the members of

the said Society, in compliance of the Bye-Laws of the said Society, election

took place in which the petitioner was elected as the President of the said

Society. The co-accused-Ajay Sehgal in the FIR was elected as a Secretary.

Ashish Kamra, who has since passed away on 25.10.2021, was elected as

Vice President whereas Rajesh Girdhar was elected as Cashier of the

Society.

3.1 As per the allegations in the FIR, the alleged case set up by the

complainant is to the effect that in order to obtain Change of Land Use

(hereinafter referred to as ‘CLU’), officials of the Society including the

petitioner submitted documents in the shape of consent letters executed by

the complainant Karamjit Singh and certain other landowners to GMADA,

which were forged and fabricated in as much as, they never executed the

same. The complainant-Karamjit Singh along with certain other landowners

approached this Court through CRWP-9767-2022. The said writ petition

came to be dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order

dated 02.02.2023 (Annexure P-5) with costs of Rs.1 lac being misconceived

and not maintainable. However, vide order dated 03.05.2024, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court set aside the said order dated 02.02.2023 and remanded the

matter back to this Court and the same is being heard by the Hon’ble

Division Bench and is now pending for adjudication for 10.09.2024.

7 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 08-09-2024 04:41:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116586

CRM-M-41190-2024 (O&M) 8

3.2 That on 19.02.2018, GMADA issued License No.27/2018 in

favour of the Society to develop a residential colony over 108.58 Acres of

land falling in two villages i.e. Rehmanpur and Palheri under the provisions

of Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1955 (hereinafter

referred to as PAPRA). The said licence was issued on the basis of CLU

granted by the Department of Town & Country Planning in favour of the

Society on 03.06.2016. It is alleged that while obtaining the said CLU,

photocopies of the consent letters of certain land owners including that of

complainant Karamjit Singh were produced by the promoter i.e. the Society

and the said consent letters are forged and fabricated documents. The

licence granted in favour of the Society was initially valid till 19.04.2023 but

while granting extension for a period of two years till 19.03.2025, promoter

was mandated to acquire 100% title of land within the period of six months.

Submissions of learned Senior counsel for the petitioner

4. Learned Senior counsel has vehemently argued that licence

granted in favour of the promoter i.e. the Society stands cancelled whereas

with regard to CLU, Society has undertaken to leave the land in question of

the complainant and other complaining landowners and to include some

other equivalent piece of land. This is also matter of fact that the

complainant as well as the other landowners who alleged that the consent

letters which are alleged to have been executed by them and have been

produced by the Society at the time of obtaining CLU are forged and

fabricated documents, continue to be the owners in possession of their

respective lands.

8 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 08-09-2024 04:41:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116586

CRM-M-41190-2024 (O&M) 9

4.1 Learned Senior counsel further contends that in terms of the

Clause 41(iv) of the Bye-Laws of the Society, it is the Secretary alone who

is authorized to sign on behalf of the Society and to conduct correspondence.

Not only in pursuance to the said Clause 41(iv) of the Bye-Laws of the

Society but even otherwise, right from the date of applying for CLU before

various authorities i.e. PUDA, GMADA, Department of Town & Country

Planning, RERA, Department of Cooperative Societies, Punjab, it was the

then Secretary Ajay Sehgal, who is now the President of the Society alone

who had been doing the correspondence and submitted the documents on

behalf of the Society including the photocopies of the allegedly forged and

fabricated consent letters to GMADA.

4.2 He further submits that it is the own case of the prosecution that

it is merely the photocopies of the consent letters, which are alleged to be

forged, were submitted by the Society to GMADA. As per the law which is

well settled, no prosecution can be launched merely on the basis of

photocopies of the documents. Even otherwise, as submitted above, since the

complainant and other landowners who alleged that the consent letters in

their names have been forged and fabricated, continue to be the owners in

possession of their respective lands, commission of no offence whatsoever is

made out.

4.3 He also contends that keeping in view the totality of the facts

and circumstances, mentioned above, especially the age of the petitioner i.e.

72 years, kind indulgence of this Court is sought to grant him anticipatory

bail in the said FIR. Reliance is placed upon ‘Siddharam Satlingappa

9 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 08-09-2024 04:41:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116586

CRM-M-41190-2024 (O&M) 10

Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and others’ {2011 (1) RCR (Criminal)

123}.

Submissions of learned counsel for the complainant

5. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant has opposed the

petition filed by the petitioner and has submitted that the petitioner is

involved in a multi crore land scam and is not entitled to any relief. He

further submits that the petitioner alongwith co-accused Ajay Sehgal are the

masterminds of well-planned criminal conspiracy webbed to grab the highly

precious commercial land of the complainant, situated in the vicinity of

Chandigarh, at throw away prices. The petitioner and co- accused are very

manipulative people who have left no stone unturned to execute this multi

crore land scam. They have managed the entire departments of real estate

regulatory authorities in Mohali, be it DTCP, GMADA or RERA. Even local

police, certain ministers of Punjab Government and revenue officials are

acting as per their wishes. The custodial interrogation of accused-petitioner

is very much necessary because the forged consent letters are still not traced.

5.1 He further submits that it is only after filing of CRWP No.9767

of 2020 by the applicants that report was called by this Court from the DGP,

Punjab and Director Bureau of Investigation Punjab, Chandigarh, who

reported after lodging the FIR that prima facie case is made out against the

accused persons. Further, even after lodging of FIR on 19.11.2022, they

managed the investigation agency, who did not arrest accused Ajay Sehgal

upto 11.07.2024 and the petitioner till date. It was that very existing material

(which petitioner is saying was consigned by the police) on the basis of

which this FIR has been registered after the intervention of this Court. He
10 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 08-09-2024 04:41:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116586

CRM-M-41190-2024 (O&M) 11

further places reliance upon the order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in

case of “Srikant Upadhyay & Ors vs. State of Bihar and another”, SLP

(Crl) 7940 of 2023″ and keeping in view the observations made by Hon’ble

Supreme Court, the petitioner is not entitled to concession of anticipatory

bail.

Submissions of learned State counsel

6. Learned State counsel submits that as per the investigation

conducted in the present case, the petitioner was actively involved in all the

proceedings/dealings/management of the Society. The role of the petitioner

was ascertained from the record which was procured during the investigation

from the record keeper of the Society, as per which petitioner was a

signatory in the resolution passed by the Society, thus, the petitioner was

involved in all the activities of the society.

6.1 He further submits that as per the record obtained from the SAS

Nagar Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. SAS Nagar, the petitioner is a joint

account holder in the account of the Society. It is also contended that PO

proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner and keeping in view

the seriousness of the offences the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of

anticipatory bail.

Analysis

7. For a proper consideration of the aforesaid contentions and

allied questions, it is only appropriate to refer to certain relevant decisions.

7.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Pratibha Manchanda and

another vs. State of Haryana and another, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 514” has

held that:-

11 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 08-09-2024 04:41:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116586

CRM-M-41190-2024 (O&M) 12

“16. It goes without saying that the alleged offences of forging
documents for transferring ownership of land worth crores of
rupees are grave in nature. Hence, while it is extremely
important to protect the personal liberty of a person, it is
equally incumbent upon us to analyze the seriousness of the
offence and determine if there is a need for custodial
interrogation.

17. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of
Maharashtra, this Court carefully considered the principles
established by the Constitution Bench in Gurbaksh Singh
Sibbia v. State of Punjab case. After a thorough deliberation,
this court arrived at the following conclusion:

“112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into
consideration while dealing with anticipatory bail:

(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role
of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is
made;

(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to
whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on
conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence;

(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;

(iv) The possibility of the accused’s likelihood to repeat similar
or other offences;

(v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object
of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her;

(vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in cases of
large magnitude affecting a very large number of people.

xxx xxx xxx”

18. In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), the

Constitution Bench reaffirmed that when considering

12 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 08-09-2024 04:41:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116586

CRM-M-41190-2024 (O&M) 13

applications for anticipatory bail, courts should consider factors

such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed

to the applicant, and the specific facts of the case.

19. The relief of Anticipatory Bail is aimed at safeguarding
individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the
misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals
from harassment, it also presents challenges in maintaining a
delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of
justice. The tight rope we must walk lies in striking a balance
between safeguarding individual rights and protecting public
interest. While the right to liberty and presumption of
innocence are vital, the court must also consider the gravity of
the offence, the impact on society, and the need for a fair and
free investigation. The court’s discretion in weighing these
interests in the facts and circumstances of each individual case
becomes crucial to ensure a just outcome.”

7.2 It is thus obvious from the catena of decisions dealing with

anticipatory bail that even while clarifying that arrest should be the last

option and it should be restricted to cases where arrest is imperative in the

facts and circumstances of a case, the consistent view is that the grant of

anticipatory bail shall be restricted to exceptional circumstances. In other

words, the position is that the power to grant anticipatory bail under Section

438 Cr. PC is an exceptional power and should be exercised only in

exceptional cases and not as a matter of course. Its object is to ensure that a

person should not be harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy the grudge or

personal vendetta of the complainant.

13 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 08-09-2024 04:41:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116586

CRM-M-41190-2024 (O&M) 14

7.3 It may also be observed that PO proceedings have already been

initiated against the petitioner. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal

Appeal No.1552 of 2024 (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.7940 of 2023)

dated 14.03.2024 titled as “Srikant Upadhyay & Ors vs. State of Bihar and

another” has held that when warrant of arrest or proclamation is issued, the

applicant is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary power. The relevant part

of the said judgment reads as under:-

“We have already held that the power to grant anticipatory bail
is an extraordinary power. Though in many cases it was held
that ball is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of
imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot
be the rule and the question of its grant should be left to the
cautious and judicious discretion by the Court depending on the
facts and circumstances of each case. While called upon to
exercise the said power, the Court concerned has to be very
cautious as the grant of interim protection or protection to the
accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and
may hamper the investigation to a great extent as may
sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the evidence. We
shall not be understood to have held that the Court shall not
pass an interim protection pending consideration of such
application as the Section is destined to safeguard the freedom
of an individual against unwarranted arrest and we say that such
orders shall be passed in eminently fit cases. At any rate, when
warrant of arrest or proclamation is issued, the applicant is
not entitled to invoke the extraordinary power. Certainly, this
will not deprive the power of the Court to grant pre-arrest bail
in extreme, exceptional cases in the Interest of justice. But then,
person(s) continuously, defying orders and keep absconding is
not entitled to such grant.”

14 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 08-09-2024 04:41:43 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116586

CRM-M-41190-2024 (O&M) 15

7.4 From the chronology of events narrated above, it is evident that

the petitioner along with the other co-accused prepared bogus consent letters

of the complainant and land owners for obtaining CLU in a well planned

conspiracy and forged consent letters of their land were prepared. A perusal

of the records also reveal that the names of the father of the witnesses were

also wrongly mentioned in the consent letters so that the original witnesses

may not be verified.

8 To unearth the true dimension of the alleged offence, the

custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required and keeping in view the

serious nature and magnitude of the alleged offence which involves a multi

crore scam and also considering the aspect that proclamation proceedings

have been initiated against the petitioner, this Court is of the considered

opinion that petitioner is not entitle to the concession of anticipatory bail.

9. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.




                                                     (KIRTI SINGH)
                                                        JUDGE

05.09.2024
Kapil

Whether speaking / reasoned                                   Yes/No

Whether Reportable                                             Yes/No




                                15 of 15
              ::: Downloaded on - 08-09-2024 04:41:43 :::
 

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *