CRM-M-23035 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 102 Jagga Singh State of Haryana Coram : Present: Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. 1. BNSS, 2023, dated 30.01.2025, registered under Sections 111(2b), 115(2), 126(2), 190, 191(2), 109, 61(2) of the BNS, 2023, Fatehabad. 2. question was lodged on the statement of Amit Kumar, who stated that he had two trucks working under the when he and the other truck drivers were present in the Union premises, then, Happy, Ex.President herein), Shyam Singh, Khushia, Deepak alias Deepu 5-6 unknown claimed that the Union belong truck drivers objected to the same. On their raising objection, Happy and his co-accused started Gurpreet Singh and Jagdeep 23035-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Jagga Singh Versus State of Haryana Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate, and Mr. Himanshu Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sumit Jain, Addl. A.G., Haryana. **** Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section BNSS, 2023, is for grant of anticipatory bail dated 30.01.2025, registered under Sections 111(2b), 115(2), 126(2), 190, 191(2), 109, 61(2) of the BNS, 2023, at Police Station City Tohana, District Succinctly, the facts of the present case are that the FIR in question was lodged on the statement of Amit Kumar, who stated that he had two trucks working under the Bhaichara Truck Union, when he and the other truck drivers were present in the Union premises, then, Ex.President of the Union, Rinku Kumar, Ashu, Jagga Singh (petitioner herein), Shyam Singh, Khushia, Deepak alias Deepu 6 unknown persons suddenly came in one Fortuner and two other cars. They claimed that the Union belongs to them, however, the complainant and other truck drivers objected to the same. On their raising objection, Happy and his accused started giving beatings to complainant Gurpreet Singh and Jagdeep with their lathis and - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-23035-2025 Decided on:15.05.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondent Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate, and Mr. Himanshu Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sumit Jain, Addl. A.G., Haryana. Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 482 of the anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.45 dated 30.01.2025, registered under Sections 111(2b), 115(2), 126(2), 190, at Police Station City Tohana, District present case are that the FIR in question was lodged on the statement of Amit Kumar, who stated that he had Bhaichara Truck Union, Tohana. On 30.01.2025, when he and the other truck drivers were present in the Union premises, then, Rinku Kumar, Ashu, Jagga Singh (petitioner herein), Shyam Singh, Khushia, Deepak alias Deepu, Pala and Kala alongwith in one Fortuner and two other cars. They to them, however, the complainant and other truck drivers objected to the same. On their raising objection, Happy and his complainant Amit Kumar, Deepak, Ajay lathis and wooden sticks. Shyam Singh, ...Petitioner ...Respondent 482 of the FIR No.45 dated 30.01.2025, registered under Sections 111(2b), 115(2), 126(2), 190, at Police Station City Tohana, District present case are that the FIR in question was lodged on the statement of Amit Kumar, who stated that he had n 30.01.2025, when he and the other truck drivers were present in the Union premises, then, Rinku Kumar, Ashu, Jagga Singh (petitioner alongwith in one Fortuner and two other cars. They to them, however, the complainant and other truck drivers objected to the same. On their raising objection, Happy and his Ajay ticks. Shyam Singh, VINOD KUMAR 2025.05.22 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-23035 Happy and Khushi and other body namely, Ashu, Jagga (petitioner herein), Deepak al Mistri and 4 gathering of people from the Union, The complainant and shifted to the hospital. Government Hospital, Tohana, and in the said attack, the complainant and Subhash suffered serious injuries. attack by the assailants was to usurp atmosphere of terror. Thus, they have committed an organized crime. request was made to take legal action against the culprits. On registratio the FIR, the investigation commenced. approached the concession of anticipatory bail, however, after hearing both the sides, the said relief was declined t against the said order, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition. 3. the petitioner has been falsely im the FIR has been lodged on account of rivalry in the allegations, being pre the petitioner himself is a victim and not an second incident had taken place outside the Government Hospital, Tohana at 07.30 pm and it is after the second incident, the offence under Section 109 the BNS, 2023 already under medical treatment not possible for him to cause injuries under Section 109 23035-2025 Happy and Khushia inflicted injuries on complainant’s nose, left arm, waist body parts using wooden sticks and lathis. The other c namely, Ashu, Jagga (petitioner herein), Deepak al Mistri and 4-5 other unknown persons also caused injuries to them gathering of people from the Union, the assailants escaped in their vehicle The complainant and Subhash suffered serious injuries; however, they were shifted to the hospital. The aforesaid assailants again attacked them Government Hospital, Tohana, and in the said attack, the complainant and Subhash suffered serious injuries. It was attack by the assailants was to usurp land of the atmosphere of terror. Thus, they have committed an organized crime. request was made to take legal action against the culprits. On registratio the FIR, the investigation commenced. Apprehending arrest, the petitioner approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, concession of anticipatory bail, however, after hearing both the sides, the said relief was declined to him vide order dated against the said order, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He the FIR has been lodged on account of rivalry in the allegations, being pre-meditated and fabricated, are evident. He submitted that the petitioner himself is a victim and not an second incident had taken place outside the Government Hospital, Tohana at 07.30 pm and it is after the second incident, the offence under Section 109 the BNS, 2023 has been added. He further submitted that the already under medical treatment at the time of second incident not possible for him to cause injuries under Section 109 - 2 - a inflicted injuries on complainant’s nose, left arm, waist sticks and lathis. The other co-accused, namely, Ashu, Jagga (petitioner herein), Deepak alias Deepu, Rinku, Jassa persons also caused injuries to them. Upon the assailants escaped in their vehicle Subhash suffered serious injuries; however, they were The aforesaid assailants again attacked them outside the Government Hospital, Tohana, and in the said attack, the complainant and It was stated that the motive behind the land of the truck Union and create atmosphere of terror. Thus, they have committed an organized crime. T request was made to take legal action against the culprits. On registration of Apprehending arrest, the petitioner learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, for grant of concession of anticipatory bail, however, after hearing both the sides, the said o him vide order dated 01.04.2025. Hence, aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that plicated in the present case. He submitted that the FIR has been lodged on account of rivalry in the truck Union and, thus, the meditated and fabricated, are evident. He submitted that the petitioner himself is a victim and not an aggressor. It is submitted that the second incident had taken place outside the Government Hospital, Tohana at 07.30 pm and it is after the second incident, the offence under Section 109 has been added. He further submitted that the petitioner was at the time of second incident and, thus, it was not possible for him to cause injuries under Section 109 of the BNS, 2023. It is a inflicted injuries on complainant’s nose, left arm, waist accused, Deepu, Rinku, Jassa . Upon the assailants escaped in their vehicles. Subhash suffered serious injuries; however, they were outside the Government Hospital, Tohana, and in the said attack, the complainant and that the motive behind the Union and create an The n of Apprehending arrest, the petitioner for grant of concession of anticipatory bail, however, after hearing both the sides, the said . Hence, aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that submitted that Union and, thus, the meditated and fabricated, are evident. He submitted that aggressor. It is submitted that the second incident had taken place outside the Government Hospital, Tohana at of petitioner was and, thus, it was of the BNS, 2023. It is VINOD KUMAR 2025.05.22 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-23035 submitted that there is a cross on the basis of which FIR No.49 dated 31.01.2025 was registered. He submitted that the petitioner Hospital before Subhash suffered injuries and there is no possibility of his involvement in the second attack. alleged, is made out against the petitioner and, thus, he deserves concession of anticipatory bail. 4. 5. accepts notice on behalf the bail application. He has drawn attention of this Court to the status report, filed by way of affidavit of Umed Singh, HPS, DSP, Tohana. It is submitted that the petitioner was specifically named in overt act as all the accused to take over the seat incident, injured Subhash, Jagdeep and Gurpree examined. The complainant Amit Kumar has received five injuries. During investigation, co was recorded. The statements of injured Subhash had also been recorded. He submitted that as per the inv persons found to be involved and their status is as follows: Sr. No. Name of accused 1. Shyam 2. Rinku Kumar 3. Baljeet Singh 4. Anuj alias Ashu 5. Happy 23035-2025 submitted that there is a cross-version recorded on the basis of which FIR No.49 dated 31.01.2025 was registered. He submitted that the petitioner had already been Hospital before Subhash suffered injuries and there is no possibility of his involvement in the second attack. He submitted that no alleged, is made out against the petitioner and, thus, he deserves concession of anticipatory bail. Notice of motion. On asking of the Court, Mr. Sumit Jain, Addl. A.G., Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and has vehemently opposed the bail application. He has drawn attention of this Court to the status report, filed by way of affidavit of Umed Singh, HPS, DSP, Tohana. It is submitted that the petitioner was specifically named in overt act as all the accused persons came at the spot with pre to take over the seat/land of the truck Union. It is submitted that afte incident, injured Subhash, Jagdeep and Gurpree xamined. The complainant Amit Kumar has received five injuries. During investigation, co-accused Sham Lal was arrested and his disclosure statement was recorded. The statements of injured Subhash had also been recorded. He submitted that as per the investigation conducted so far, there are 14 accused persons found to be involved and their status is as follows: Name of accused Date of arrest By name/in disclosure statement 31.01.2025 Named in FIR Rinku Kumar 05.02.2025 Named in FIR Baljeet Singh 22.02.2025 Named in disclosure statement of accused Rinku Anuj alias Ashu 26.03.2025 Named in FIR Arrest pending Named in FIR - 3 - recorded at the instance of Anuj Mitta on the basis of which FIR No.49 dated 31.01.2025 was registered. He been admitted in the Government Hospital before Subhash suffered injuries and there is no possibility of his He submitted that no prima facie case, as alleged, is made out against the petitioner and, thus, he deserves concession of On asking of the Court, Mr. Sumit Jain, Addl. A.G., Haryana, State and has vehemently opposed the bail application. He has drawn attention of this Court to the status report, filed by way of affidavit of Umed Singh, HPS, DSP, Tohana. It is submitted that the petitioner was specifically named in the FIR and has committed an came at the spot with pre-determined mind nion. It is submitted that after the incident, injured Subhash, Jagdeep and Gurpreet were medico legally xamined. The complainant Amit Kumar has received five injuries. During accused Sham Lal was arrested and his disclosure statement was recorded. The statements of injured Subhash had also been recorded. He estigation conducted so far, there are 14 accused persons found to be involved and their status is as follows:- By name/in Recovery (if any) On bail/in custody Named in FIR One Wooden stick In custody Named in FIR Nil On Bail Named in statement of accused Rinku Nil On Bail Named in FIR Nil On Bail in FIR Arrest pending Arrest pending at the instance of Anuj Mittal on the basis of which FIR No.49 dated 31.01.2025 was registered. He admitted in the Government Hospital before Subhash suffered injuries and there is no possibility of his case, as alleged, is made out against the petitioner and, thus, he deserves concession of On asking of the Court, Mr. Sumit Jain, Addl. A.G., Haryana, State and has vehemently opposed the bail application. He has drawn attention of this Court to the status report, filed by way of affidavit of Umed Singh, HPS, DSP, Tohana. It is submitted the FIR and has committed an determined mind r the were medico legally xamined. The complainant Amit Kumar has received five injuries. During accused Sham Lal was arrested and his disclosure statement was recorded. The statements of injured Subhash had also been recorded. He estigation conducted so far, there are 14 accused On bail/in In custody Arrest pending VINOD KUMAR 2025.05.22 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-23035 6. Jagga Singh (Petitoner) 7. Khushiya 8. Jassa Mistri 9. Deepak 10. Pardeep @ Madda 11. Ajay 12. Bittu Saini 13. Kaja @ Ram Niwas 14. Hoshiyar Singh Thekedar petitioner as per the investigation conducted so far and dismissal of the present petition as the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner would adversely affect the ongoing investigation. 6. available record, it is deciphered that the alleged occurrence had taken place on 30.01.2025. The FIR had been registered on the statement of complainant Amit Kumar. The petitioner along with co of the unlawful a The MLRs produced would show the injuries suffered by the complainant side and the MLR of the petitioner is also placed on record he has also suffered injuries. As submi petitioner, the cross 23035-2025 Jagga Singh (Petitoner) Arrest pending Named in FIR Khushiya Arrest pending Named in FIR Jassa Mistri Arrest pending Named in FIR Arrest pending Named in FIR Pardeep @ Arrest pending Named in statement of injured Subhash Arrest pending Named in statement injured Subhash Bittu Saini Arrest pending Named in statement of injured Subhash Kaja @ Ram Arrest pending Named in statement of injured Subhash Hoshiyar Singh Thekedar Arrest pending Named in statement of injured Subhash He submitted that prima facie petitioner as per the investigation conducted so far and dismissal of the present petition as the investigation is grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner would adversely affect the ongoing investigation. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing available record, it is deciphered that the alleged occurrence had taken place on .01.2025. The FIR had been registered on the statement of complainant Amit Kumar. The petitioner along with co-accused had been alleged to be part of the unlawful assembly and all have caused injuries to the complainant side. The MLRs produced would show the injuries suffered by the complainant side and the MLR of the petitioner is also placed on record has also suffered injuries. As submi the cross-version has also been got - 4 - Named in FIR Arrest pending Arrest pending Named in FIR Arrest pending Arrest pending Named in FIR Arrest pending Arrest pending Named in FIR Arrest pending Arrest pending Named in statement of injured Subhash Arrest pending Arrest pending Named in statement of injured Subhash Arrest pending Arrest pending Named in statement of injured Subhash Arrest pending Arrest pending Named in statement of injured Subhash Arrest pending Arrest pending Named in statement of injured Subhash Arrest pending Arrest pending prima facie case is made out against the petitioner as per the investigation conducted so far and hence, prays for investigation is still at threshold and grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner would adversely affect the ongoing After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the available record, it is deciphered that the alleged occurrence had taken place on .01.2025. The FIR had been registered on the statement of complainant accused had been alleged to be part ssembly and all have caused injuries to the complainant side. The MLRs produced would show the injuries suffered by the complainant side and the MLR of the petitioner is also placed on record, which would show that has also suffered injuries. As submitted by learned counsel for the version has also been got registered by the petitioner’s side Arrest pending Arrest pending Arrest pending Arrest pending Arrest pending Arrest pending Arrest pending Arrest pending Arrest pending case is made out against the hence, prays for at threshold and grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner would adversely affect the ongoing the available record, it is deciphered that the alleged occurrence had taken place on .01.2025. The FIR had been registered on the statement of complainant accused had been alleged to be part ssembly and all have caused injuries to the complainant side. The MLRs produced would show the injuries suffered by the complainant side would show that counsel for the registered by the petitioner’s side VINOD KUMAR 2025.05.22 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-23035 and, thus, the same would indicate time of occurrence. contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be appreciated at this stage where he has approached this Court for the grant of concession of anticipatory bail. However, the same could be appreciated at the relevant stage. 7. are given under Section 482 (1) & (2) of BNSS which reads as under: 23035-2025 he same would indicate the very time of occurrence. Since the investigation is at threshold, contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be appreciated at this stage where he has approached this Court for the grant of concession of anticipatory bail. However, the same could be appreciated at the ge. For the consideration of anticipatory bail, the statutory parameters are given under Section 482 (1) & (2) of BNSS which reads as under: “482. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest: 1. When any person has reason to believe on an accusation of having committed a non may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section; and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, bail. 2. When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under sub-section (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit, including (i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; (iv) such other condition as may be imp section (3) of section 480, as if the bail were granted under that section.” - 5 - very presence of the petitioner at the Since the investigation is at threshold, therefore, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be appreciated at this stage where he has approached this Court for the grant of concession of anticipatory bail. However, the same could be appreciated at the For the consideration of anticipatory bail, the statutory parameters are given under Section 482 (1) & (2) of BNSS which reads as under:- “482. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest: When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section; and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction section (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; such other condition as may be imposed under sub section (3) of section 480, as if the bail were granted presence of the petitioner at the therefore, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be appreciated at this stage where he has approached this Court for the grant of concession of anticipatory bail. However, the same could be appreciated at the For the consideration of anticipatory bail, the statutory parameters that he may be arrested bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section; and that Court may, if it thinks fit, he shall be released on When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction section (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to a condition that the person shall not leave India without osed under sub- section (3) of section 480, as if the bail were granted VINOD KUMAR 2025.05.22 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-23035 8. Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 9. Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632 and again reiterated that while considering the anticipatory bail take into consideration the factors like gravity of offence, chances of a tampering with the evidence and probabilities of his fleeing from justice etc. The Court should be circumspect about the impact of its decision on the society as well. The anticipatory bail is an extraordinary discretion which should be exercised in the extraordinary circumstances. 10. apparent that the complicity of the petitioner has been The investigation is at its threshold. Thus, granting anticipato petitioner at this stage would scuttle the ongoing investigation. 23035-2025 Hon'ble Supreme Court in State represented by (1997) 7 SCC 187 has held as under: “6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconded with a favorable order under 438 if the code. In a case like this effective interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advan informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Succession such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulted by a pre the time he interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argumen can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The court has to presume that responsible Police Officers would conduct themselves in task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.” Hon’ble Apex Court in plethora of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632 and again reiterated that while considering the anticipatory bail take into consideration the factors like gravity of offence, chances of a tampering with the evidence and probabilities of his fleeing from justice etc. The Court should be circumspect about the impact of its decision on the society as well. The anticipatory bail is an extraordinary discretion which should be the extraordinary circumstances. Weighing the facts of the case on the anvil of the law settled, it is apparent that the complicity of the petitioner has been The investigation is at its threshold. Thus, granting anticipato petitioner at this stage would scuttle the ongoing investigation. - 6 - Hon'ble Supreme Court in State represented by CBI Vs. Anil has held as under:- “6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconded with a favorable order under Section if the code. In a case like this effective interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Succession such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulted by a pre-arrest bail during gated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argumen can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The court has to presume that responsible Police Officers would conduct themselves in task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as Hon’ble Apex Court in plethora of judicial precedents including Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632, has time and again reiterated that while considering the anticipatory bail, the Court is to take into consideration the factors like gravity of offence, chances of accused tampering with the evidence and probabilities of his fleeing from justice etc. The Court should be circumspect about the impact of its decision on the society as well. The anticipatory bail is an extraordinary discretion which should be the extraordinary circumstances. Weighing the facts of the case on the anvil of the law settled, it is apparent that the complicity of the petitioner has been prima facie established. The investigation is at its threshold. Thus, granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage would scuttle the ongoing investigation. CBI Vs. Anil custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning Section if the code. In a case like this effective interrogation of suspected tage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Succession such interrogation would elude if the suspected person arrest bail during gated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The court has to presume that responsible Police Officers would conduct themselves in task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as judicial precedents including , has time the Court is to ccused tampering with the evidence and probabilities of his fleeing from justice etc. The Court should be circumspect about the impact of its decision on the society as well. The anticipatory bail is an extraordinary discretion which should be Weighing the facts of the case on the anvil of the law settled, it is established. ry bail to the VINOD KUMAR 2025.05.22 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-23035 11. Court is of the opinion that the petitioner do not qualify for exercising the extraordinary power by th petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. 12. on the merits of the case. April 15, 2025 vinod* 23035-2025 In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner do not qualify for exercising the extraordinary power by this Court in his favour. Resultantly, the present petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. Nothing said herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. , 2025 Whether Speaking/Reasoned: Whether Reportable: - 7 - In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner do not qualify for exercising the is Court in his favour. Resultantly, the present petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. Nothing said herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion (Rajesh Bhardwaj) Judge Whether Speaking/Reasoned: NO/YES NO/YES In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner do not qualify for exercising the is Court in his favour. Resultantly, the present Nothing said herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion VINOD KUMAR 2025.05.22 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document