Gaurav vs State Of Haryana
- Court
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
104 CRA-S-1708-SB-2004 (O&M)
Decided on : 12.11.2026
Manoj Kumar
..... Appellant
VERSUS
State of Haryana
..... Respondent
104-II CRA-S-1892-SB-2004 (O&M)
Gaurav
..... Appellant
VERSUS
State of Haryana
..... Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH
Present : Ms. Ishani Goyal, Legal Aid Counsel
for the appellant in CRA-S-1708-SB-2004.
Mr. Bhupender Singh Ghangas and Mr. A.K. Chahal, Advocates
for the appellant in CRA-S-1892-SB-2004.
Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG Haryana.
*
SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.
These are two appeals against conviction, arising out of the
same judgment.
2. Both the appellants are aggrieved of the judgment of conviction
dated 14.08.2004, hereinafter being referred to as ‘impugned judgment’ only.
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.13 14:40
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
2
The abovementioned judgment came into being pursuant to a trial conducted
in the Court of Sessions (Additional Sessions Judge), hereinafter being
referred to as ‘trial Court’ only, pertaining to FIR No.356 dated 22.09.2003,
Police Station City Bhiwani, under Sections 325/395/397 of Indian Penal
Code and Section 25 of Arms Act.
3. In view of abovementioned judgment, by virtue of order on
quantum of sentence dated 16.08.2004, hereinafter being referred to as
‘impugned order’, following sentences were awarded to the appellants:-
Offence under
Convicts
Sentence
Both the
appellants
Section
395 read with
Rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years
each and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. In default
thereof to undergo further imprisonment
(rigorous) for a period of six months.
Manoj
Kumar
Section 397
IPC
25 of Arms Act
Rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years
and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default thereof
to undergo further imprisonment (rigorous) for a
period of three months
Both the sentences, awarded to the appellant (Manoj Kumar),
were ordered to run concurrently.
4. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of
this case came into being at the instance of ‘Manohar Lal S/o Bhim Singh’,
hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. According to
prosecution, the complainant got his statement, Ex.PA, recorded on
22.09.2003, wherein he stated that on that day, he along with ‘Pankaj S/o
Prem Parkash’ was going to bank on scooter bearing registration No.HR16-
B-2925. As per complainant, ‘Pankaj’ was driving the scooter, and that at
about 10:15 am, when they were near bypass turn, a white car bearing
registration No.HR-34-6032 overtook them and blocked their passage.
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.13 14:40
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
3
5. It was also stated by the complainant that there were four
persons travelling in the abovementioned car and out of abovesaid four
persons three alighted from the car, whereas one continued to sit inside the
car. According to complainant, one of the abovesaid assailants, who was
carrying a pistol, in his hand along with his two associates, forcibly tried to
snatch the bag, being carried by him and when he (the complainant) resisted,
one of them inflicted injuries on his left hand, with a knife. It was also stated
by the complainant that thereafter, the abovesaid assailants managed to
snatch the bag from his hand and inflicted 5-6 injuries on his left hand. As
per complainant, ‘Pankaj’ raised alarm for help and thereafter, the assailants
fled from the spot.
6. It was the case of the prosecution that on the basis of
abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the
investigation taken up. According to prosecution, during the course of
investigation, the Investigating Officer inspected the spot, prepared rough
site plan of the place of occurrence, recorded the statement of witnesses
under Section 161 CrPC, traced the accused and arrested them. As per
prosecution, on completion of usual formalities of investigation, the final
report under Section 173 CrPC was filed in the Court.
7. To discharge its burden, of proving charges against the
appellants, the prosecution in the instant case had relied upon documentary
as well as oral evidence. The documents proved and marked with exhibits,
by the prosecution were:-
Ex.PA - Statement of the complainant
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.13 14:40
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
4
Ex.PA/1 - Endorsement, recorded by the police on
the statement of complainant
Ex.PA/2 - Copy of First Information Report
Ex.PB - Medico-Legal Report of the complainant
Ex.PC - The information memo sent by the doctor
to the police station (ruqqa)
Ex.PD - Application filed by the police before the
doctor, seeking opinion with regard to
fitness of the complainant to give
statement
Ex.PD/1 - Opinion of doctor on the abovementioned
application
Ex.PE - Application filed by the police before the
doctor seeking opinion with regard to
nature of injuries suffered by the
complainant
Ex.PE/1 - Opinion of doctor on the abovementioned
application
Ex.PF - Sanction order for the prosecution of
appellant (Manoj Kumar), for the offence
under Section 25 of Arms Act
Ex.PG - Rough site plan of the place of
occurrence
Ex.PH - Seizure memo of the car
Ex.PH/1 &
- Seizure memos of cash recovered from
PH/2
the dashboard of the car
Ex.PH/3 - Rough site plan of the place of recovery
of car
Ex.PJ - X-ray report of the complainant
Ex.PJ/1 - X-ray film of the complainant
Ex.PK - Scaled site plan of the place of
occurrence
Ex.PL - Disclosure statement of the appellant
(Manoj Kumar)
Ex.PM - Sketch of pistol
Ex.PN - Seizure memo of pistol
Ex.P1 - Parcel containing pistol
Ex.PO - Identification memo of place of
occurrence by the appellant (Manoj
Kumar)
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.13 14:40
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
5
Ex.PP - Disclosure statement of appellant-Gaurav
Ex.PQ - Another disclosure statement of
appellant-Gaurav
Ex.PR - Seizure memo of the bag
Ex.PS - Identification memo of place, where car
was left
Ex.PT - Affidavit of HC Jagmal
Ex.PU - Disclosure statement of appellant-Manoj
Kumar
Ex.PV - Application seeking for examination of
the recovered pistol by an expert
(Armourer)
Ex.PV/1 - Report of Armourer
Ex.PW - Disclosure statement of appellant-Manoj
Kumar
Ex.PX - Site plan of the place of recovery of pistol
from appellant-Manoj Kumar
Ex.PY - Site plan of the place of recovery of bag
from appellant-Gaurav
Ex.PZ - Identification memo of the place of
occurrence by appellant-Gaurav
8. To provide support and corroboration to the above-mentioned
documentary evidence, as many as fifteen witnesses were examined by the
prosecution. They were:-
PW-1 - Manohar Lal, the complainant
PW-2 - Dr. Dara Singh
PW-3 - Bhisham Chander
PW-4 - Parshant
PW-5 - SI Baljit Singh
PW-6 - Dr. Anil Sharma
PW-7 - Satbir Singh, Draftsman
PW-8 - ASI Ranbir Singh
PW-9 - HC Satbir Singh
PW-10 - HC Jagmal Singh
PW-11 - ASI Attar Singh
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.13 14:40
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
6
PW-12 - HC Jaipal
PW-13 - HC Mahabir Singh
PW-14 - HC Prithvi Raj
PW-15 - SI Sube Singh
9. Once the prosecution evidence had been recorded, the learned
trial Court completed all the essential formalities, enshrined under Section
313 CrPC. Thereafter, opportunity to lead defence evidence was afforded to
the appellants. In their defence evidence, the appellants examined only one
witness, i.e. ‘Pankaj Goel’ as DW-1.
10. When the evidence of both the parties was complete, the
learned trial Court gave opportunity to the learned public prosecutor and the
learned counsel for the appellants, to address arguments. Thereafter, a
judgment of conviction, against the appellants, was pronounced and,
accordingly, the appellants were sentenced to undergo imprisonment, as
detailed hereinbefore.
11. Heard.
12. At the very outset, it has been contended by learned counsel for
the appellants that instant case is a case, wherein different chargesheets
against five persons were filed, and that different trials were conducted. As
per learned counsel for the appellants, out of five persons prosecuted by the
Investigating Agency, three have already been acquitted by the learned trial
Court. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the appellants that
instant case is a case, wherein a thoroughly inconsistent and contradictory
evidence adduced by the prosecution has been believed by the learned trial
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.13 14:40
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
7
Court and thus, an error of judgment has been committed by the learned trial
Court. According to learned counsel for the appellants, a bare perusal of the
evidence adduced by the prosecution would go to show that the abovesaid
evidence was not good enough to bring home guilt of the appellants, but the
learned trial Court merely on the basis of assumptions and presumptions
arrived at a conclusion that charges against the appellants were duly proved.
13. The thrust of the arguments of the learned counsel for the
appellants has been upon the plea that the story set out by the complainant in
the FIR and deposed in the witness-box was different from the story
developed by the Investigating Officer. With regard to above, the learned
counsel for the appellants have referred to the contents of the statement of
complainant, recorded by the police as Ex.PA, and the statement recorded by
the Court as PW-1. As per learned counsel for the appellants, on both the
occasions, the complainant testified that there were only four persons, but as
per story developed by the prosecution, five persons were involved in the
incident. According to learned counsel for the appellants, the
abovementioned fact would go to show that the investigation in the present
case was tainted one and therefore, any charge-sheet prepared by the
Investigating Agency deserved to be disbelieved.
14. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the appellants have
also referred to the deficiency in prosecution case, as the sole eye-witness of
the occurrence, namely ‘Pankaj’, was not examined by the prosecution.
According to learned counsel for the appellants, the above-named witness
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.13 14:40
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
8
appeared in the witness-box as DW-1 and specifically deposed that the
appellants present in the Court were not involved in the commission of
abovementioned offence.
15. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the appellants has
also pointed out that narration of events by the complainant in his statement,
Ex.PA, and in the witness-box as PW-1, was altogether different,
particularly with regard to number of injuries inflicted on his person, and
also the number of persons, who alighted from the car.
16. In view of above arguments, the learned counsel for the
appellants have contended that the impugned judgment, being perverse,
needs indulgence and interference of appellate jurisdiction vested in this
Court. In support of abovementioned arguments the principles of law laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘D. Ramalingam
V/s State’ 2020 (18) SCC 462 have been relied upon by learned counsel for
the appellants.
17. The learned counsel for the respondent/State has controverted
the abovementioned arguments. It has been contended by learned counsel for
the respondent/State that on proper analysis of the evidence, and by
application of right proposition of law a right conclusion was drawn by the
learned trial Court, while holding the appellants guilty for the commission of
offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act.
According to learned counsel for the respondent/State, the evidence adduced
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.13 14:40
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
9
by the prosecution being thoroughly consistent and reliable, the charges
against the appellants were duly proved by the prosecution.
18. The learned counsel for the respondent/State has further
contended that during the course of trial, each and every component meant
for proving the charge for the commission of offence punishable under
Section 395 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, was established by the
prosecution, and that each and every event right from the moment of
reporting the matter to the police, till the conclusion of investigation, was
duly proved by the prosecution with the help of consistent and reliable
evidence.
19. The learned counsel for the respondent/State has further
contended that the appellants were having the criminal history, and that they
had been successful in terrorizing the eye-witness of the occurrence, namely
‘Pankaj’, and that is why, he did not appear before the Court as a
prosecution witness. According to learned counsel for the respondent/State,
the non-examination of ‘Pankaj’ as prosecution witness could not have
adverse impact on the prosecution case, in view of the fact that there is
consistent testimony of the injured, i.e. PW-1, duly supported with medical
evidence. As per learned counsel for the respondent/State, the deposition of
official witnesses also supports the prosecution case, and that the
abovementioned evidence in itself was good enough to prove charge for the
commission of offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC and Section 25
of Arms Act. In view of above, the learned counsel for the respondent/State
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.13 14:40
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
10
has contended that there is no scope for indulgence or interference in the
impugned verdict of the learned trial Court.
20. The record has been perused carefully.
21. A perusal of record shows that the entire prosecution case with
regard to details of events which unfolded on the spot, was banking upon the
deposition of complainant, who was examined as PW-1. The PW-1 in his
examination-in-chief supported the prosecution case with regard to the fact
that on 22.09.2003, when he was riding a scooter, as pillion rider, and going
to bank, on the way a car intercepted them. As per PW-1 the persons
travelling in the car were armed with weapons. The PW-1 also supported the
prosecution case to the effect that he was injured in the abovementioned
event and the bag, carrying cash, was snatched by the abovesaid assailants,
who fled from the spot. It was also stated by the PW-1 that with regard to
abovementioned statement, he had approached the police and got recorded
his statement, Ex.PA, which was signed by him. According to PW-1, the
abovementioned statement was read over to him before obtaining his
signature thereupon.
22. To provide support and corroboration to the deposition of
PW-1, the prosecution had examined ‘Dr. Dara Singh’ as PW-2. The PW-2
supported the prosecution case by deposing the fact that on 22.09.2003, he
had examined the complainant Manohar Lal medico-legally and prepared his
Medico-Legal Report, Ex.PB. According to PW-2, at the time of medico-
legal examination, six injuries were found on the person of the complainant,
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.13 14:40
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
11
and that out of abovementioned six injuries, four were caused with sharp-
edged weapon and two with blunt weapon.
23. Another Medical Officer, i.e. ‘Dr. Anil Sharma’, who
conducted radiological examination of complainant, was examined by the
prosecution as PW-6. The PW-6 deposed that in view of Medico-Legal
Report, he had conducted radiological examination of the complainant and
found a fracture of first meta carpel of left hand of the complainant. The
PW-6 in his testimony also proved the X-ray report as, Ex.PJ, and X-ray
film, as Ex.PJ/1.
24. Remaining witnesses examined by the prosecution were official
witnesses. Amongst them PW-3 had deposed that sanction order for the
prosecution of appellant-Manoj Kumar for the commission of offence
punishable under Section 25 of Arms Act, was passed by the then District
Magistrate of District Bhiwani.
25. Another witness examined by the prosecution was ‘Parshant’,
the official of General Hospital Bhiwani. He was examined as PW-4. The
PW-4 had proved bed-head ticket of the complainant.
26. Amongst the material official witnessed, the PW-5 ‘SI Baljit
Singh’ testified that on 22.09.2003, he had visited the hospital and after
obtaining consent of the doctor for recording of statement of injured, he
recorded the statement of injured as Ex.PA. According to PW-5, in view of
abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged by ‘ASI
Jagdish’ and thereafter, he visited the spot and prepared a rough site plan of
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.13 14:40
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
12
the place of occurrence. As per PW-5, being Investigating Officer of the
case, he had recorded the statement of eye-witness of the occurrence, namely
‘Pankaj’, under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code and thereafter,
went to Village Budrol for the arrest of accused, recovered the car used in
the commission of offence, vide recovery memo Ex.PH and prepared the site
plan of the place of recovery of car, Ex.PH/3.
27. The PW-13 ‘HC Mahabir Singh’, too, was a police official,
who deposed that on 22.09.2003, he was joined in the investigation of the
case by ‘SI Baljit Singh’, and that in his presence, the car bearing
registration No.HR-34-6032 was recovered from Village Budrol.
28. Another witness examined by the prosecution was PW-7 ‘Satbir
Singh Naferia’, who had deposed that on the instructions of Investigating
Officer, he had visited the spot and prepared scaled site plan of the place of
occurrence.
29. Another witness examined by the prosecution as PW-8, too,
was a police official, who deposed that on 23.12.2003, he was joined in the
investigation of the present case, and that in his presence, the appellant
Manoj Kumar had suffered disclosure statement, Ex.PL, pursuant to which a
.12 bore pistol was recovered. According to PW-8, he had drawn sketch of
the abovementioned weapon, as Ex.PM, and seized the same vide memo
Ex.PN.
30. The next witness examined by the prosecution was ‘HC Satbir
Singh’. He was examined as PW-9. The PW-9 deposed that in his presence,
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.13 14:40
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
13
the appellant-Manoj Kumar had identified the place of occurrence and with
regard to above, memo Ex.PO, was prepared. According to PW-9, thereafter
on 07.01.2004, the appellant-Gaurav suffered the disclosure statements,
Ex.PP, and another disclosure statement on 10.01.2004 , Ex.PQ. The PW-9
further testified that pursuant to abovementioned disclosure statement,
Ex.PQ, the bag snatched from the complainant was recovered vide memo,
Ex.PR.
31. Another witness examined by the prosecution, as PW-10, was
‘HC Jagmal’. The PW-10 with the help of his affidavit, Ex.PT, deposed that
on 22.09.2003, being In-charge of the store-room of the police station, the
case property was deposited in the storeroom ( malkhana ) of the police
station.
32. The PW-11 ‘ASI Attar Singh’, too, was an official witness, who
deposed that in his presence, the appellant-Manoj Kumar had suffered a
disclosure statement, which was reduced into writing as Ex.PU.
33. The PW-12 ‘HC Jai Pal’, too, was a police official, who
deposed that .12 bore pistol was produced before him for examination, and
that he had examined the abovementioned pistol mechanically and found the
same in working order.
34. Another witness examined as PW-14 ‘HC Prithvi Raj’, too, was
a formal witness, who deposed that on registration of FIR in this case,
special reports were delivered by him to the learned Area Magistrate and
senior police officer.
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.13 14:40
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
14
35. The last witness examined by the prosecution, as PW-15, in
this case was ‘SI Sube Singh’. It was deposed by PW-15 that on 18.12.2003,
he arrested the appellant-Manoj Kumar and interrogated him on 18.12.2003
as well as on 23.12.2003. According to PW-15, during the course of
investigation, the appellant-Manoj Kumar had suffered disclosure
statements, Ex.PW and Ex.PL, respectively, and that pursuant to
abovementioned disclosure statements, a country-made pistol was recovered.
Other steps taken by him during the course of investigation were also proved
by the above-named witness.
36. As far as the abovementioned evidence adduced by the
prosecution was concerned, a careful analysis of the same would go to show
that:-
(a) in his statement before the police, Ex.PA, the complainant had
testified that there were four persons travelling in the car, and
that out of abovementioned four persons, three alighted from
the car, one of whom was carrying a pistol. But the same person
when appeared in the witness-box as PW-1 testified that only
two persons alighted from the car and two continued to sit
inside the car. Thus, there was a difference about the number of
persons, who alighted from the car;
(b) in his statement, Ex.PA, the complainant stated that 5-6
injuries, with the help of sharp-edged weapon, were inflicted on
his left hand. However, in the Court, the complainant deposed
(as PW-1) that only one injury was inflicted on his left hand;
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.13 14:40
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
15
(c) as per PW-1 only one injury was suffered by him, but as per
PW-2, there were six injuries on the person of complainant
(PW-1); and
(d) as per PW-1, only the person, who was carrying knife, had
inflicted injury on his person. Thus, the injury on the person of
complainant could have been with a sharp-edged weapon only,
but as per PW-2, two of the injuries found on the person of
complainant were caused by blunt weapon.
37. The abovementioned narrations of events of PW-1 in the
witness-box in the Court and before the police were quite divergent and
contradictory to each other and therefore, the credibility of the testimony of
PW-1, as injured and eye-witness of the occurrence, stood impeached. In
such circumstances, in my considered opinion, unless corroborated by an
independent supporting evidence, the sole testimony of PW-1 was not good
enough to draw an inference that allegations with regard to commission of
offence were duly proved against the appellants, by the PW-1.
38. In order to provide support and corroboration to the testimony
of PW-1, the most material witness could have been another eye-witness of
the occurrence, namely ‘Pankaj’. However, the above-named witness was
not examined by the prosecution. Although the above-named witness was
given up by the prosecution, but he appeared in the witness-box as DW-1.
The DW-1 specifically deposed in the Court, on oath, that the appellants
present in the Court were not involved in the commission of offence. The
deposition of DW-1 qua the fact that the appellants present in the Court at
the time of trial were not involved in the commission of offence, demolished
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.13 14:40
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
16
the prosecution case with regard to involvement of appellants in the
commission of offence.
39. In addition to above, there were other deficiencies also in the
prosecution evidence. Such as:-
(a) in the FIR lodged in the present case, the names and identities of
the assailants were not mentioned. In such circumstances, the
Investigating Officer was having only one lead to trace the
accused, which was the registration number of the vehicle. It
was very strange that on the very same day, without any
enquiry from the official of vehicle registration authority,
straightaway the Investigating Officer went to Village Budrol
and recovered the vehicle involved in the commission of
offence. In ordinary circumstance, it was impossible to track the
vehicle to a nearby village without an enquiry from vehicle
registration office. However there was no such evidence on
record;
(b) that once the accused were arrested by the Investigating Officer,
and their identities were not disclosed in the FIR by the
complainant, in order to fix the role of accused in the
commission of offence, ‘Test Identification Parade’ was
mandatory. However, any such test identification parade was
not conducted in the instant case. This lapse on the part of
investigating agency was serious;
(c) that in order to connect the appellants with the commission of
offence, the recovery of bag, which was being used by the
complainant for carrying the cash, could have been a very good
link evidence. But the abovesaid bag was not produced in the
Court, nor got identified from the complainant. Thus, the
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.13 14:40
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
17
abovementioned link, between the commission of offence and
the appellants, too, stood snapped in the present case;
(d) that the investigation in the present case was otherwise
unreliable, in view of the fact that instead of specific deposition
of complainant that four persons were involved in the
commission of offence, the Investigating Agency prosecuted
five persons in the present case, which means that the
investigation was tainted one in the present case; and
(e) that since the names and identities of the assailants were not
disclosed by the complainant in his statement, Ex.PA, the only
evidence produced by the Investigating Agency was the
disclosure statements, suffered by the appellants. However, the
abovementioned disclosure statements were inadmissible in
evidence, in view of the fact that any discovery related to the
present case did not take place pursuant to disclosure
statements, suffered by the appellants. Thus, the disclosure
statements relied upon by the prosecution were hit by Section
25 of the Indian Evidence Act.
40. If all the abovementioned factors, including the discrepancies
and deficiencies would have been co-jointly considered, it would have led to
a definite conclusion that the evidence adduced by the prosecution, being
self-contradictory and incoherent with the story set-out by the complainant
in the FIR, was not good enough to bring home guilt of the appellants. Thus,
it is hereby observed that an error of judgment was committed by the learned
trial Court while drawing a conclusion that charge for an offence under
Section 395 read with Section 397 of IPC, was successfully proved, by the
prosecution, against the appellants.
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.13 14:40
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
18
41. In view of the fact that the evidence adduced by the prosecution
with regard to involvement of appellants in the commission of offence has
not been believed, in my opinion, with regard to charge for the commission
of offence punishable under Section 25 of Arms Act against the appellant-
Manoj Kumar, the same evidence cannot be held to be trustworthy and thus,
it is hereby observed that the stand of the prosecution with regard to
recovery of firearm from the possession of appellant-Manoj Kumar cannot
be believed.
42. As a sequel to abovementioned observations, it is hereby held
that there is need for indulgence and interference of appellate jurisdiction
vested in this Court in the impugned judgment, and that the present appeals
have got merits. Thus, both the appeals are hereby allowed . The impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence are hereby set aside and both
the appellants are hereby acquitted of the charges framed against them.
43. The pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
44. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected
case.
(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)
JUDGE
12.11.2026
Gaurav Thakur
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.13 14:40
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document