1 2025:CGHC:46986 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6635 of 2025 Vishal Anand S/o Shri Anand Kumar Jha, Aged About 51 Years Presently Chief Engineer/ R S W, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur, R/o V-17, Near Bharat Mata School, Officers Railway Colony, Bilaspur (C.G.) Through (Pairokar) Mamta Anand W/o Vishal Anand, Aged About 45 Years, R/o V-17, Near Bharat Mata School, Officers Railway Colony, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh- 495003 ... Applicant versus Central Bureau Of Investigation Through Superintendent Of Police, Central Bureau Of Investigation, AC-II, New Delhi. Camp At Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Shri Sunil Kumar, Advocate. For Respondent/CBI : Shri B. Gopa Kumar, Advocate (through VC) and Shri Himanshu Pandey, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12/09/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested on 25.04.2025, in connection with Crime No.RC2172025A0010 registered at Police Station CBI/AC- II/New Delhi, for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, as projected by the applicant is that based on allegedly reliable information received by the respondent-CBI, it was revealed that certain officials of the South-East Central Railway (for short, the SECR) were allegedly involved in corrupt and illegal activities in collusion with M/s Jhajharia Nirman Ltd., a company engaged in the business of construction. The prosecution further alleges that between 01.01.2018 and 25.04.2025, SECR awarded 44 work contracts to M/s Jhajharia Nirman Ltd. Further case of the prosecution is that the applicant, Vishal Anand, in his capacity as Chief Engineer/RSW, SECR, was actively involved as the Convenor of the Tender Committee concerning Tender No. Engg-CTE-BSP-08-2024-25. Upon completion of the tender process through e-tendering and reverse auction, a work order was issued in favour of M/s Jhajharia Nirman Ltd. for the execution of safety fencing with gates and a pedestrian subway from KM 618.000 to KM 722.000 of the BSP-JSG section within the Bilaspur Division. The awarded work could not be executed due to the absence of the requisite cable clearance from the S&T Department. In order to obtain or expedite such clearance, co-accused Sushil Jhajharia, the Managing Director of M/s Jhajharia Nirman Ltd., approached the applicant to seek his influence and intervention with the S&T Department to facilitate the clearance process. It is further alleged that on 21.04.2025, a meeting purportedly took place between the applicant and co-accused Sushil Jhajharia in the applicant's office cabin, followed by another meeting later that evening. During these meetings, a mutual understanding was arrived at whereby a bribe amount of Rs.31,93,500/- was to be paid to the applicant in lieu of facilitating the pending clearance from the S&T 3 Department. Pursuant to this alleged agreement, co-accused Manoj Pathak, an employee of M/s. Jhajharia Nirman Ltd. was allegedly instructed to deliver the said amount to the applicant's father, Anand Kumar Jha, and his brother, Kunal Anand, at Ranchi on 25.04.2025. The respondent agency laid a trap and recovered the said amount from the applicant's said relatives. 3. Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been implicated primarily on the basis of alleged telephonic interceptions which were done illegally, and on the recovery of money from his relatives at a location approximately 500 KMs away from his place of posting. There is no allegation or evidence of any direct demand or acceptance of a bribe by the applicant himself. The applicant was arrested separately at Bilaspur, on 25.04.2025, whereas the alleged trap and recovery of the money took place at Ranchi, Jharkhand. Based on the aforesaid allegations, FIR No. RC2172025A0010 was registered on 25.04.2025 under Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12 of the PC Act and Section 61(2) of the BNS. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed on 23.06.2025. 4. Mr. Kumar further submits that a bare perusal of the charge sheet reveals glaring contradictions and inherent improbabilities in the prosecution's case casting serious doubt on the veracity of the allegations against the applicant. He submits that firstly, the prosecution's theory has undergone a fundamental shift from the stage of registration of the FIR to the filing of the charge-sheet as in paragraph 16.3 of the charge-sheet, it was initially alleged that M/s Jhajharia Nirman Ltd. regularly gave undue advantage/illegal gratification to officials of SECR and that in return, the Company had been awarded lucrative Railway Construction contracts, and the bills put up by the Company were sanctioned expeditiously. 4 However, upon realising that the tender in question was awarded through a transparent process of e-tendering followed by reverse auction, wherein M/s Jhajharia Nirman Ltd. emerged as the lowest bidder by quoting 8.11% below the tender value, the prosecution has evidently abandoned this theory entirely. Secondly, the charge-sheet now pivots to an entirely new allegation, as set out in Paragraph 16.33, that the alleged bribe was demanded for obtaining clearance from the S&T Department. This shift in narrative is not merely cosmetic but indicative of the absence of any credible or consistent case against the applicant. It is submitted that the S&T Department functions independently under the Principal Chief Signal & Telecommunication Engineer and follows a separate chain of command and established procedures. The applicant, in his capacity as Chief Engineer/RSW in the Civil Engineering Department, has no jurisdiction, control, or administrative role in the grant or processing of S&T clearances, which are handled exclusively at the Divisional Level by the Sr. DSTE/DSTE, in accordance with standard Railway Protocols and Telecom Circular No. 17/2013 dated 24,06.2013. The allegation by the CBI is not only factually incorrect but is also belied by the contemporaneous official record. Thirdly, the charge-sheet itself acknowledges several grave procedural lapses that go to the root of the matter. Notably, no prior approval under Section 17A of the PC Act was obtained before initiating inquiry or investigation, as mandatorily required. Furthermore, sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the said Act is still awaited, as admitted in Paragraph 16.62 of the charge- sheet. Additionally, the alleged telephonic interceptions, which form the bedrock of the prosecution's case, were carried out without proper authorization under the provisions of the Telecommunications Act, 2023. These threshold violations not only vitiate the proceedings but also 5 reinforce the applicant's submission that he has been falsely implicated. The applicant is a senior and distinguished public servant, having rendered over 25 years of unblemished service, and there exists no material on record demonstrating that he had either the authority to commit the alleged offence or had any direct involvement in the purported criminal act. He would submit that charge sheet has already been filed and the applicant is in jail since 25/04/2025 and conclusion of trial will take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 5. Alongwith the bail petition, the applicant has also filed an application being IA No. 2/2025, seeking ad-interim bail on medical grounds stating that the health condition of the applicant is deteriorating day by day. 6. It is submitted by Mr. Sunil Kumar that the applicant is suffering from severe pneumonia and despite the repeated Court orders, the jail authorities have failed to provide adequate treatment resulting in serious deterioration of health, including persistent chest pain, severe breathlessness. The applicant is a patient of Type-II diabetes and in the last week of July, 2025, the applicant was referred to Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, Raipur, where the chest X-ray revealed pneumonia with fluid accumulation in lungs. The applicant had to undergo fluid drainage from his lungs followed by CT scan on 16.08.2025 and on 26.08.2025, the applicant was admitted to the Department of Respiratory Medicine, Ambedkar Hospital, where, after conducting echocardiogram, it was revealed that the applicant is suffering from cardiac failure (CCF/CHF) and that only 20% of his heart is functioning which is a life threatening condition that requires urgent, continuous and specialised cardiac care under expert supervision, however, the applicant was discharged on 29.08.2025. 6 7. On the other hand, Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, placing reliance on the return filed, strongly opposes the prayer for either grant of regular bail or ad- interim bail. He submits that bail application of the co-accused persons namely Manoj Pathak and Sushil Jhajharia @ Sushil Kumar Agrawal have already been rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 5456 of 2025 and MCRC No. 5589 of 2025 on 08.08.2025. 8. According to Mr. Gopa Kumar, the instant case RC2172025A0010 was registered in CBI, AC-II Branch, New Delhi on 25.04.2025 for the offences under Sections 61(2) of BNS, 2023 read with Sections 7, 8, 9, 10 & 12 of P.C. Act 1988 (as amended in 2018) against (I) the present applicant, Vishal Anand (IRSE:2000), presently Chief Engineer / RSW / SECR /Bilaspur, (ii) Sushil Jhajharia @ Sushil Kumar Agarwal, Managing Director in M/s. Jhajharia Nirman Ltd., (iii) Saransh Jhajharia, Director in M/s Jhajharia Nirman Ltd., (iv) Vinap Jhajharia, Director in M/s Jhajharia Nirman Ltd, (v) Manoj Pathak, employee in M/s, Jhajharia Nirman Ltd., (vi) Anand Kumar Jha (father of Vishal Anand, present applicant), (vii) Kunal Anand (brother of Vishal Anand, the present applicant) (viii) M/s. Jhajharia Nirman Ltd., and (ix) Unknown Others, on the basis of source information. The allegation in brief is that official(s) of SECR were indulging in corrupt and illegal activities in connivance with Sushil Jhajharia @ Sushil Kumar Agarwal, his sons Saransh Jhajharia and Vinap Jhajharia, all are representatives/Directors of M/s Jhajharia Nirman Ltd. Bilaspur, which is a major construction Company operating from Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. The Company regularly gave undue advantage/illegal gratification to officials of SECR for exerting substantial influence over them. In return, the Company is awarded lucrative Railway Construction contracts, and the bills put up by the Company are sanctioned expeditiously. M/s. Jhajharia Nirman Ltd. is executing various 7 work orders for SECR, Bilaspur, including construction of minor and major bridges, Railway Over Bridges (ROBs), Railway Under Bridges (RUBs), capacity enhancement work, track lining work, etc. On 21.04.2025, Sushil Jhajharia informed his son Vinap Jhajharia about his meeting with the applicant, Vishal Anand, presently posted as the Chief Engineer/RSW at SECR, Bilaspur to ensure likely benefits for the Company by virtue of applicant’s official position in lieu of bribing him. On 21.04.2025, Sushil Jhajharia met with the applicant to discuss about pending matters and to finalize the quantum of undue advantage to be provided in this regard. On 21.04.2025, Sushil Jhajharia, after detailed discussions with applicant regarding clearance of pending matters in lieu of undue advantage, instructed his employee i.e. Manoj Pathak to deliver a sum of Rs 32 lacs (approx.) at Ranchi, Jharkhand to relative of the applicant at Ranchi, Jharkhand. Further, the applicant also informed his brother, Kunal Anand that Manoj Pathak would be coming to Ranchi by bus to deliver the bribe amount on 25.04.2025. Additionally, Manoj Pathak later informed Anand Kumar Jha, father of the applicant that he would be arriving in Ranchi at around 11:30 hours on 25.04.2025 and would deliver the bribe amount by 12:00 hours at Ranchi. Kunal Anand, brother of the applicant would also accompany Anand Kumar Jha, father of the applicant to collect the bribe amount. 9. Mr. Gopa Kumar submits that the charge-sheet bearing No. 05/2025 dated 20.06 2025 has been filed before the learned trial Court on 23.06.2025, for the offences under Sections 61(2) of BNS, 2023 read with Section 7, 8, 9, 10 & 12 of PC Act, 1988 (As amended in 2018) and substantive offences thereof, against the applicant-Vishal Anand (A-1), Sushil Jhajharia @Suhsil Kumar Agrawal (A-2), Manoj Pathak (A-3), Anand Kumar Jha (A-4), Kunal Anand (A-5) and M/s Jhajharia Niraman 8 Limited (A-6). 10. It is next submitted by Mr. Gopa Kumar that the respondent/CBI, AC-II, New Delhi laid a successful trap in the presence of independent witnesses at Ranchi and apprehended Manoj Pathak (the person who delivered the bribe money), an employee of M/s Jhajharia Nirman Ltd. and Kunal Anand (the person who collected the bribe money), brother of applicant immediately after the exchange/transaction of bribe amount Rs.31,93,500/- at Birsa Chowk, Ranchi. The bribe amount of Rs.31,93,500/- has been recovered from the possession of Kunal Anand after the delivery of the bribe amount to him by Manoj Pathak. This bribe was delivered by Manoj Pathak on the instruction of Sushil Jhajharia. Manoj Pathak disclosed in presence of independent witnesses that 4 sealed packets containing the cash money (approx. Rs. 32 lakhs) were collected by him from the wife of accused-Sushil Jhajharia @ Sushil Kumar Agarwal, Director of M/s Jhanjharia Nirman Ltd. on 24.04.2025 on the direction of the accused Sushil Agrawal from his residence i.e. Jhajaria Mansion at Jagmal Chowk, Bilaspur. He also revealed that accused Sushil Agrawal directed him to hand over the above cash money to Anand Kumar Jha at Ranchi. He also revealed that Sushil Jhajharia provided the mobile number of Anand Kumar Jha (father of the applicant). The mobile number was found in the mobile phone of Manoj Pathak, who was apprehended by CBI on the spot. The co-accused Kunal Anand and Anand Kumar Jha disclosed in presence of the independent witnesses to have collected bribe amount Rs.32 lakhs (approx) from Manoj Pathak. The aforementioned bribe amount was found in the vehicle of co-accused Kunal Anand in three sweet boxes (Making your Sweetest Dreams come true) in sealed condition (laminated with Cello tape) and a separate bundle of white colour. On 9 enquiring about the said sealed parcels, co-accused Anand Kumar Jha revealed that these parcels having cash money were delivered by Manoj Pathak on the directions of his elder son i.e. the applicant -Vishal Anand. The applicant was arrested on 25.04.2025 and is currently under the judicial custody at Raipur. 11. Mr. Gopa Kumar strongly opposes the bail application and submits that the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected in-limine on the ground that the case was registered on 25.05.2025 and co-accused Manoj Pathak, an employee of M/s Jhajharia Nirman Ltd. was arrested on 25.05.2025 immediately after exchange of bribe amount of Rs.31,93,500/- who was following the directions of his boss Sushil Jhajharia, and delivered the afore-mentioned illegal gratification on the direction of Sushil Jhajharia to the family members of the applicant at the behest of the applicant. The case is at the crucial stage of investigation. The larger conspiracy hatched by accused persons, is required to be unearthed. There are serious allegations against applicant as he has been found involved in corruption. Co-accused Manoj Pathak, after his apprehension, revealed in the presence of independent witnesses that Sushil Agarwal directed him to deliver the bribe amount to Anand Kumar Jha, father of the applicant, at Ranchi. Further, the documents pertaining to the work being executed by accused Company under the supervision of the applicant Vishal Anand are to be collected and scrutinized. The witnesses from the office of the applicant are required to be examined. If the applicant is granted bail, there is every possibility that he may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses. The aforesaid act on the part of applicant does not warrant any kind of leniency. The recorded telephonic conversations and other relevant evidence collected so far, prima facie indicates the hatching of criminal conspiracy among the 10 accused persons and commission of offence of corruption for seeking favor from the co-accused public servant. Co-accused Manoj Pathak was apprehended by the CBI team immediately after delivery of bribe money of Rs.31,93,500/- to the co-accused Kunal Anand and Anand Kumar Jha on 25.05.2025 and the same money was recovered during investigation by CBI. An additional amount of cash Rs. 18,50,000/- was recovered from the residential premises of the applicant-Vishal Anand and an amount of Rs. 20 Lakhs and jewellery having cost of approx. Rs. 2 Crore were recovered from the residential/ shop premise of the other co-accused Kunal Anand. It is suspected that the money which was seized from the premises of the applicant - Vishal Anand and Kunal Anand might be the ill-gotten money delivered by co-accused Sushil Jhajharia for obtaining favours in the award of Railway contracts or for clearing of his bills etc. and this bribe money may be delivered by Manoj Pathak on the direction of his employer Sushil Jhajharia. The source of the remaining amount needs to be ascertained during the investigation of the case. The applicants are highly influential and there is every possibility of tampering with evidences or influencing the witnesses of the case as investigation qua previous instances of bribe delivered by the co- accused to the father of the applicant and other public servant is still pending. The present bail application is liable to be rejected on the ground that the averments made in the instant bail application are misleading, baseless and devoid of merits as there are clinching evidences against the applicant to establish the allegations against him. In view of the accusation, seriousness of the offence and gravity of the offences, the applicant do not deserve any sympathetic view from this Hon'ble Court. The material in hand is sufficient to establish the role played by the accused applicant in the entire conspiracy. 11 12. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and materials available on record. 13. A query was put to learned counsel for the applicant as to whether he intends to file any rejoinder to the return filed by the respondent-CBI, Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he does not wish to file any rejoinder, but submits that looking to the ailing condition of the applicant, a sympathetic view may be taken and the applicant may be granted ad-interim bail. 14. On the one hand, the learned counsel for the applicant does not wish to file any rejoinder to the return filed by the respondent/CBI, and on the other hand, instead of arguing the matter on merits, Mr. Sunil Kumar vehemently argues that the applicant may be granted bail looking to his physical condition and ailments. 15. It is not in dispute that the brother of the applicant-namely Kunal Anand was granted short term parole vide order dated 23.07.2025 by this Court for a period of two months on the ground that his son was suffering from blood cancer. Further, it has been informed by learned counsel for the respondent/CBI that looking to the old age of the father of the applicant, namely Anand Kumar Jha, who is aged about 77 years, was not arrested by the CBI and when he was presented before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court released him on bail on furnishing personal bond. 16. So far as grant of ad-interim bail on the ground of ailment of the applicant is concerned, this Court does not find any merit in the application and as such, the same is rejected. The jail authorities themselves are taking care of the situation and he is being provided medical attention as and when required. Had the medical condition of the applicant been so critical that it would have been the matter of life and death, the applicant would 12 have approached this Court seeking appropriate relief at the first instance itself but the bail application itself has been filed on 13.08.2025 when the applicant is said to have been arrested on 25.04.2025 and the learned trial Court had rejected the bail application on 24.06.2025. It is evident hat the applicant, who is the main accused, was waiting for the outcome of the bail applications filed by the co-accused Manoj Pathak and Sushil Jhajharia @ Sushil Kumar Agrawal, which has been rejected on 08.08.2025 by this Court. Hence, this Court proceeds to decide the bail application on merits. 17. From perusal of the materials available on record, it is evident that the applicant-Vishal Anand, who is an employee of the SECR, is the main accused in this case who is alleged to have obtained illegal gratification to the tune of Rs. 32 Lacs approx. from other co-accused persons in order to grant work contracts and clearance of bills of M/s. Jhajharia Nirman Ltd. 18. One of the co-accused Manoj Pathak was apprehended immediately after he handed over the cash amounting to Rs. 31,93,500/- to the co- accused namely Kunal Anand and Anand Kumar Jha (brother and father of the applicant) on 25.05.2025 and the said money has been duly recovered during the investigation. Prima facie, the statement of independent witnesses, surveillance records, telephonic conversations and the actual recovery of Rs. 31,93,500/- clearly establishes the active role of the co-accused persons in the delivery of illegal gratification to the brother and father of the applicant. The conversation record between the parties prima facie establishes that there does exist a money trail. 19. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that no prosecution sanction has been obtained before prosecuting the 13 applicant, the same is the subject matter of trial and the applicant would be free to raise the said contention during the course of trial and not at the stage of deciding this bail application. 20. The present appears to be a case of organized crime as the co-accused Sushil Jhajharia’s Company i.e. M/s Jhajharia Nirman Ltd. has been awarded 44 works contract in between 01.01.2018 and 25.04.2025 by the SECR. The telephonic conversations enclosed by the respondent / CBI prima facie establishes that there does exist a link which connects the applicant with the offence in question. Further, there is no explanation with regard to the bribe amount of Rs.31,93,500/- which has been recovered by the respondent/CBI from the possession of Kunal Anand after the delivery by the co-accused Manoj Pathak on the directions of co-accused Sushil Jhajharia. 21. The present is a case which involves economic offence which is considered to be more serious than conventional crimes as they affect the entire economy and pose a serious threat to the financial health of the country while shaking public confidence in the financial system. Such crimes committed during the course of economic or business activities cause financial harm and adversely impact the country's economic well- being and financial health. These offences typically involve fraudulent activities that affect both public and private financial interests. 22. It is well settled that while granting bail, the Court has to consider three factors viz. flight risk or likelihood of fleeing justice, likelihood of tampering with the evidence and likelihood of influencing the witness. In the present case, since there is a connivance between a private Company and the officials of the SECR, it cannot be ruled out that the applicant would not try to tamper with the evidence or influence the 14 witnesses. Economic offences constitute a different class and need to be visited with different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and is considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. 23. In State of Gujarat v. Mohan Lal Jitamalji Porwal {(1987) 2 SCC 364}, the Apex Court observed as under: "The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest.…” 24. Further, in State of Maharashtra through CBI, Anti Corruption Branch, Mumbai v. Balakrishnan Dattatreya Kumbhar {(2012) 12 SCC 384}, it has been observed by the Apex Court that corruption is not only a punishable offence but also undermines human rights, indirectly violating them, and systematic corruption, is a human rights violation in itself, as it leads to systematic economic crimes. 25. In Nimmagadda Prasad v. Central Bureau of Investigation, {(2013) 7 SCC 466}, it was observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that in the last few years, the country has been seeing an alarming rise in white collar crimes which has affected the fiber of the country’s economic structure and the economic offences have serious repercussions on the development of the country as a whole. It was further observed as under: 15 “27. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the Court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.” 26. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence levelled against the applicant and the fact that in the present case though charge sheet has been filed in respect of the applicant and other co-accused persons, however, the respondent/CBI is still investigating the source of remaining amount and involvement of other persons is still to be unearthed, the documents appended with the bail petition especially, the recovery of cash amount of Rs. 18,50,000/- from the residential premises of the applicant, the telephonic conversation between the applicant and the co-accused itself prima facie discloses his involvement and it also prima facie transpires that the applicant is indulged in providing undue advantage in terms of awarding works contract and clearing bills etc. of the co-accused and taking into consideration the gravity of the offence and the aforesaid facts and circumstances, as also the possibility that the close nexus between applicant being an official of the SECR, makes it probable that he could influence the witnesses or destroy evidence, if released on bail, the bail application of the applicant – Vishal Anand involved in Crime No. RC2172025A0010, registered at Police Station, CBI-AC-II/New Delhi, for 16 the offences punishable under Sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 , is rejected at this stage. 27. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Gouri / Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.09.15 18:46:05 +0530