CRM-M-17454 222 KULBIR SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: Present: ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. 21 1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR this Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking anticipatory bail. 2. In paragraph 12 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents 3. The facts and all which reads as follows: 17454-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH KULBIR SINGH Versus STATE OF PUNJAB HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Mr. Abdul Aziz, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Akshay Kumar, A.A.G., Punjab. **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J. Dated Police Station 10.02.2025 Amargarh, District Malerkotla The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR this Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking anticipatory bail. In paragraph 12 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal The facts and allegations are being taken from the status report filed by the State which reads as follows: “That with regard to the subject matter of the present petition, it is respectfully submitted that one complaint from complainant Shakeel Khan son of Ramzan Khan, resident Nausehra Sadrabad, Tehsil and District Malerkotla was received in the office of Senior Superintendent of Police, Malerkotla for taking action against the petitioner Kulbir Singh son of Paramjit Singh, resident of Village Falound Kalan, District Ma his associates namely, Alfurkan, Aarif Khan the allegations that the petitioner and his co and cheating upon the complainant by mispresenting to the complainant and his father-in-law and by concealing the facts of agreement to sell. The complainant further alleged in his written complaint that his father Roshan Lal is retired from Air Force and due to retirement, he was having funds and wants to invested the same. Alfurkan and Aarif Khan @ Sonu, who are working as property dealers came to prime land, which is available at a very low price and there will be a lot of profit in that land. On their assurance, he and his father them and agreed to purchase the land. On the very IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-17454-2025 Date of decision: 03.07.2025 ...Petitioner …Respondent HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Mr. Abdul Aziz, Advocate for the petitioner. Sections Amargarh, District 420 of IPC The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], In paragraph 12 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal egations are being taken from the status report filed by the State That with regard to the subject matter of the present petition, it is respectfully submitted that one complaint from complainant Shakeel Khan resident Nausehra Sadrabad, Tehsil and District Malerkotla was received in the office of Senior Superintendent of Police, Malerkotla for taking action against the petitioner Kulbir Singh son of Paramjit Singh, resident of Village Falound Kalan, District Malerkotla and his associates namely, Alfurkan, Aarif Khan@Sonu and Paramjit Singh on the allegations that the petitioner and his co-accused have committed fraud and cheating upon the complainant by mispresenting to the complainant law and by concealing the facts of agreement to sell. The nant further alleged in his written complaint that his father-in-law Roshan Lal is retired from Air Force and due to retirement, he was having funds and wants to invested the same. Alfurkan and Aarif Khan @ Sonu, who are working as property dealers came to him and told that they have prime land, which is available at a very low price and there will be a lot of profit in that land. On their assurance, he and his father-in-law trusted them and agreed to purchase the land. On the very next day, aforesaid captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], In paragraph 12 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal egations are being taken from the status report filed by the State That with regard to the subject matter of the present petition, it is respectfully submitted that one complaint from complainant Shakeel Khan resident Nausehra Sadrabad, Tehsil and District Malerkotla was received in the office of Senior Superintendent of Police, Malerkotla for taking action against the petitioner Kulbir Singh son of lerkotla and Sonu and Paramjit Singh on accused have committed fraud and cheating upon the complainant by mispresenting to the complainant law and by concealing the facts of agreement to sell. The law Roshan Lal is retired from Air Force and due to retirement, he was having funds and wants to invested the same. Alfurkan and Aarif Khan @ Sonu, him and told that they have prime land, which is available at a very low price and there will be a lot of law trusted ext day, aforesaid Jyoti 2025.07.10 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-17454 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter has been compromis private respondent. As per report of the Registry, private respondent has been served but none has appeared on his behalf. Counsel for the petitioner has handed over self attested copy of the compromise. 5. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail contends that pre and their family. 6. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report. 7. It would be appropriate to refer to which read as follows: “ ROLE OF THE PETITIONER The present FIR No.21 dated 10.02.2025 under Section 420 of IPC, Police Station Amargarh was registered against the petitioner by Shakeel Khan. During investigation conducted by the Inquiry Officer, it concluded that the petitioner ha the land measuring 9 bigha for sale consideration price of Rs.12,67,000/ executing forged agreement to sell. The complainant and his father payment of Rs.22,50,000/ 17454-2025 2 Alfurkan and Arif Khan @ Sonu came to him and he took Rs.2 lacs from his father-in-law and gave it to them and entered into the agreement to sell land measuring 9 Bighas for 12,67,000/ agreement to sell in favour of his father deed was fixed after 6 months. At that time, they come to know that Kulbir Singh and Paramjit Singh are not real owner of this land, however, they made an agreement to sell with the real owners and when asked for copy of agreement to sell, they said that at that time, they have no copy. The complainant's father-in-law had already made the payment of Rs. 22,50,000/- as earnest money to Kulbir Singh and his other co and the remaining amount has to be paid at the time of regis sale deed. After some time, the real owner of the land namely, Manjit Singh son of Davinder Singh met the complainant and his father the land in question, when the complainant and his father the same and told them that it is he, who is the owner in possession of the land in question and he had not sold this land in question to anyone and he has further told them that they have been cheated by someone. When the complainant spoke to Kulbir Singh and Paramjit Singh, they have an agreement to sell and will give a copy to the complainant, however, they kept slandering the complainant and his father day and then started saying that they will return the earnest money. Thereafter, they continued to harass the complainant and his and now they refused to return the earnest money. Therefore, it was requested to take necessary legal action against aforementioned persons.” Counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter has been compromis private respondent. As per report of the Registry, private respondent has been served but none has appeared on his behalf. Counsel for the petitioner has handed over self attested copy of the compromise. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the status report, which read as follows: ROLE OF THE PETITIONER The present FIR No.21 dated 10.02.2025 under Section 420 of IPC, Police Station Amargarh was registered against the petitioner Kulbir Singh based on compl by Shakeel Khan. During investigation conducted by the Inquiry Officer, it concluded that the petitioner has cheated the complainant and his father the land measuring 9 bigha for sale consideration price of Rs.12,67,000/ executing forged agreement to sell. The complainant and his father payment of Rs.22,50,000/- as earnest money to the petitioner and the remaining amount kan and Arif Khan @ Sonu came to him and he took Rs.2 lacs from law and gave it to them and entered into the agreement to sell land measuring 9 Bighas for 12,67,000/- per Bigha by executing agreement to sell in favour of his father-in law and the registration of sale months. At that time, they come to know that Kulbir Singh and Paramjit Singh are not real owner of this land, however, they made an agreement to sell with the real owners and when asked for to sell, they said that at that time, they have no copy. law had already made the payment of Rs. as earnest money to Kulbir Singh and his other co-accused and the remaining amount has to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. After some time, the real owner of the land namely, Manjit Singh son of Davinder Singh met the complainant and his father-in-law on the land in question, when the complainant and his father-in-law visited at it is he, who is the owner in possession of the land in question and he had not sold this land in question to anyone and he has further told them that they have been cheated by someone. When the complainant spoke to Kulbir Singh and Paramjit Singh, they said that they have an agreement to sell and will give a copy to the complainant, however, they kept slandering the complainant and his father-in-law every day and then started saying that they will return the earnest money. harass the complainant and his father-in-law the earnest money. Therefore, it was requested to take necessary legal action against aforementioned persons.” Counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter has been compromised with the private respondent. As per report of the Registry, private respondent has been served but none has appeared on his behalf. Counsel for the petitioner has handed over self attested by imposing any stringent conditions and trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report. the following portions of the status report, The present FIR No.21 dated 10.02.2025 under Section 420 of IPC, Police Station Kulbir Singh based on complaint moved by Shakeel Khan. During investigation conducted by the Inquiry Officer, it concluded cheated the complainant and his father-in-law on account of selling the land measuring 9 bigha for sale consideration price of Rs.12,67,000/- per bigha by executing forged agreement to sell. The complainant and his father-in-law had made the as earnest money to the petitioner and the remaining amount kan and Arif Khan @ Sonu came to him and he took Rs.2 lacs from law and gave it to them and entered into the agreement to sell per Bigha by executing the registration of sale months. At that time, they come to know that Kulbir Singh and Paramjit Singh are not real owner of this land, however, they made an agreement to sell with the real owners and when asked for to sell, they said that at that time, they have no copy. law had already made the payment of Rs. accused tration of the sale deed. After some time, the real owner of the land namely, Manjit law on law visited at it is he, who is the owner in possession of the land in question and he had not sold this land in question to anyone and he has further told them that they have been cheated by someone. When the said that they have an agreement to sell and will give a copy to the complainant, law every day and then started saying that they will return the earnest money. law the earnest money. Therefore, it was ed with the private respondent. As per report of the Registry, private respondent has been served but none has appeared on his behalf. Counsel for the petitioner has handed over self attested by imposing any stringent conditions and trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner the following portions of the status report, The present FIR No.21 dated 10.02.2025 under Section 420 of IPC, Police Station moved by Shakeel Khan. During investigation conducted by the Inquiry Officer, it concluded law on account of selling per bigha by law had made the as earnest money to the petitioner and the remaining amount Jyoti 2025.07.10 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-17454 has to be paid at the time of his father-in-law have later on come to know about it that the petitioner was not owner of the said land and one Manjit Singh was the original owner of the same. The aforesaid Manjit Singh met the complainant and his father complainant and his father owner in possession of the land in question and he had not sold this land in question to anyone and he has further told them that they way, the petitioner had prior knowledge about the non between him and the real owner of land in question and in planned conspiracy, he executed a forged agreement to sell in fa him. In this way, the petitioner committed fraud and cheating upon the complainant and his father-in-law by way of execution of forged agreement to sell. So, a specific role is attributed to the petitioner REASONING: 8. complainant is unrepresented which shows that complainant is not interested in the case, as such, compromise is unrebutted. Therefore, no grou 9. Pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecution or to frame charges, but this Court is not considering the evidence at that s anticipatory bail. An analysis of the above does not justify custodial interrogation or pre trial incarceration. 10. Given the above, the penal provisions invoked coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for custodial interrogation or the pre stage. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail. 11. Given above, petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail in the FIR captioned above subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, and if the matter is before a Court, then the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa 17454-2025 3 has to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. However law have later on come to know about it that the petitioner was not owner of the said land and one Manjit Singh was the original owner of the same. The aforesaid Manjit Singh met the complainant and his father-in-law on complainant and his father-in-law visited the same and told them that it is he, who is the owner in possession of the land in question and he had not sold this land in question to anyone and he has further told them that they have been cheated by the petitioner. In this way, the petitioner had prior knowledge about the non between him and the real owner of land in question and in planned conspiracy, he executed a forged agreement to sell in favour of father him. In this way, the petitioner committed fraud and cheating upon the complainant and law by way of execution of forged agreement to sell. So, a specific role is attributed to the petitioner in the commission of present offence. REASONING: Counsel for the petitioner refers complainant is unrepresented which shows that complainant is not interested in the case, as such, compromise is unrebutted. Therefore, no grou trial incarceration should not be a replica of post evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecution or to frame charges, but this Court is not considering the evidence at that stage but is analyzing it for the stage of anticipatory bail. An analysis of the above does not justify custodial interrogation or pre trial incarceration. Given the above, the penal provisions invoked coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for custodial interrogation or the pre stage. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail. Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail in the FIR captioned above subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, and if the matter is before a Court, then the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa registration of the sale deed. However, the complainant and law have later on come to know about it that the petitioner was not owner of the said land and one Manjit Singh was the original owner of the same. The aforesaid law on the land in question, when the law visited the same and told them that it is he, who is the owner in possession of the land in question and he had not sold this land in question to have been cheated by the petitioner. In this way, the petitioner had prior knowledge about the non-execution of an agreement to sell between him and the real owner of land in question and in planned conspiracy, he vour of father-in-law of the complainant to cheat him. In this way, the petitioner committed fraud and cheating upon the complainant and law by way of execution of forged agreement to sell. So, a specific role is in the commission of present offence.” s to compromise, despite service complainant is unrepresented which shows that complainant is not interested in the case, as such, compromise is unrebutted. Therefore, no ground is made out to deny the bail. trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. The evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecution or to frame charges, but tage but is analyzing it for the stage of anticipatory bail. An analysis of the above does not justify custodial interrogation or pre- Given the above, the penal provisions invoked coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for custodial interrogation or the pre-trial incarceration at this stage. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail. provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail in the FIR captioned above subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, and if the matter is before a Court, then the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa , the complainant and law have later on come to know about it that the petitioner was not owner of the said land and one Manjit Singh was the original owner of the same. The aforesaid the land in question, when the law visited the same and told them that it is he, who is the owner in possession of the land in question and he had not sold this land in question to have been cheated by the petitioner. In this execution of an agreement to sell between him and the real owner of land in question and in planned conspiracy, he law of the complainant to cheat him. In this way, the petitioner committed fraud and cheating upon the complainant and law by way of execution of forged agreement to sell. So, a specific role is compromise, despite service complainant is unrepresented which shows that complainant is not interested in the case, conviction sentencing. The evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecution or to frame charges, but tage but is analyzing it for the stage of - Given the above, the penal provisions invoked coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations and the other factors peculiar to this case, there trial incarceration at this stage. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail in the FIR captioned above subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, and if the matter is before a Court, then the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Jyoti 2025.07.10 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-17454 Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Officer/Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accu 12. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details: 1. AADHAR number 2. Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a 3. Mobile number (If available) 4. E- 13. This order is subject to the petitioner’s complying with the following terms. 14. The petitioner is directed to join the investigation within seven days of uploading this order on the official webpage of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and as and when called by the Investigator of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Section 23 of BSA, 2023. The petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer or any Superior Officer and shall cooperate with the investigation at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, the prosecution will be open to seeking cancellation of the bai the investigation, the petitioner shall not be subjected to third inhuman treatment, etc. 15. The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case or dissuade them from d Court. 16. In case the Investigator/Officer arraigns another section of any penal offense in this FIR, and if the new section prescribes a maximum sentence that is not greater then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added section(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sections prescribe a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the sections men Investigator/Officer days, providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law. 17. This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is t indulges in any non 17454-2025 4 Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Officer/Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accu While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details: AADHAR number Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk. Mobile number (If available) -Mail id (If available) This order is subject to the petitioner’s complying with the following terms. The petitioner is directed to join the investigation within seven days of uploading the official webpage of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and as and when called by the Investigator. The petitioner shall be in deemed custody for Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Section 23 of BSA, 2023. The petitioner shall join the tigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer or any Superior Officer and shall cooperate with the investigation at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, the prosecution will be open to seeking cancellation of the bai the investigation, the petitioner shall not be subjected to third inhuman treatment, etc. The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the In case the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Station arraigns another section of any penal offense in this FIR, and if the new section prescribes a maximum sentence that is not greater then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added section(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sections prescribe a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the sections men Investigator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the petitioner notice of a minimum of seven days, providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law. This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is t indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State may file an application for cancellation Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Officer/Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or This order is subject to the petitioner’s complying with the following terms. The petitioner is directed to join the investigation within seven days of uploading the official webpage of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and as and The petitioner shall be in deemed custody for Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Section 23 of BSA, 2023. The petitioner shall join the tigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer or any Superior Officer and shall cooperate with the investigation at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, the prosecution will be open to seeking cancellation of the bail. During the investigation, the petitioner shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and isclosing such facts to the Police or the Charge of the concerned Police Station arraigns another section of any penal offense in this FIR, and if the new section prescribes a maximum sentence that is not greater than the sections mentioned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added section(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sections prescribe a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the sections mentioned above; then, in that case, the Charge shall give the petitioner notice of a minimum of seven days, providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law. This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner bailable offense, the State may file an application for cancellation Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Officer/Court While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following The petitioner is directed to join the investigation within seven days of uploading the official webpage of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and as and The petitioner shall be in deemed custody for Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Section 23 of BSA, 2023. The petitioner shall join the tigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer or any Superior Officer and shall cooperate with the investigation at all further stages as required. In the event of l. During degree, indecent language, The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and isclosing such facts to the Police or the Charge of the concerned Police Station arraigns another section of any penal offense in this FIR, and if the new section than the sections mentioned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added section(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sections prescribe a sentence exceeding tioned above; then, in that case, the Charge shall give the petitioner notice of a minimum of seven hat if the petitioner bailable offense, the State may file an application for cancellation Jyoti 2025.07.10 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-17454 of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail. 18. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 19. A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds. 20. Petition allowed in term disposed of. July 03, 2025 Jyoti-IV Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 17454-2025 5 of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the l web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand July 03, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No. of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the l web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds. s mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE of opinion on the A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the l web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may s mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand (ANOOP CHITKARA) Jyoti 2025.07.10 09:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document