CRM-M- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 104 Gurkiran Singh State of Punjab CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL 1. Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) for grant of No.42 dated Sections 307, 324, 34 of IPC and Section 25, 27 of the Arms Act, Station Chohla Sahib, Tarn Taran. 2. 15.06.2024 at about 07:15 PM, the complai of Jagtar Singh, aged 39 years, resident of Raniwala, P.S. Chohl alleged that he alongwith Harmanjeet Singh, son of Amarjeet Singh, resident of Raniwala, was returning to refueling a white Etios car, driven by resident of Raniwala, intercepted them. From the car, accused Gurkiran -43713-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Gurkiran Singh V/s State of Punjab CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Malkiat S. Hundal, Advocate for the petitioner (through Video Conference) Mr. Gurpartap S. Bhullar, AAG Punjab. Mr. J.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the complainant. ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) Present petition has been filed Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR dated 25.06.2024, registered for the offences punishable under 307, 324, 34 of IPC and Section 25, 27 of the Arms Act, Chohla Sahib, Tarn Taran. The gravamen of the FIR in question reflects that o 15.06.2024 at about 07:15 PM, the complai of Jagtar Singh, aged 39 years, resident of Raniwala, P.S. Chohl alleged that he alongwith Harmanjeet Singh, son of Amarjeet Singh, resident of Raniwala, was returning to refueling an electric transformer. As they approached the main road, a white Etios car, driven by accused Palwinder Singh, son of Iqbal Singh, resident of Raniwala, intercepted them. From the car, accused Gurkiran 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-43713-2025 Date of decision: 22.08.202 ....Petitioner ....Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Malkiat S. Hundal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Gurpartap S. Bhullar, AAG Punjab. Mr. J.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the complainant. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR , registered for the offences punishable under 307, 324, 34 of IPC and Section 25, 27 of the Arms Act, at Police The gravamen of the FIR in question reflects that o 15.06.2024 at about 07:15 PM, the complainant namely Kuldeep Singh, son of Jagtar Singh, aged 39 years, resident of Raniwala, P.S. Chohla Sahib, alleged that he alongwith Harmanjeet Singh, son of Amarjeet Singh, resident of Raniwala, was returning to their village on motorcycle after n electric transformer. As they approached the main road, a Palwinder Singh, son of Iqbal Singh, resident of Raniwala, intercepted them. From the car, accused Gurkiran .2025 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR , registered for the offences punishable under at Police The gravamen of the FIR in question reflects that on nant namely Kuldeep Singh, son a Sahib, alleged that he alongwith Harmanjeet Singh, son of Amarjeet Singh, village on motorcycle after n electric transformer. As they approached the main road, a Palwinder Singh, son of Iqbal Singh, resident of Raniwala, intercepted them. From the car, accused Gurkiran AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.22 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- Singh (petitioner herein) son of Satnam Singh, alig stating that accused Palwinder Singh fired 3/4 shots with intention whereby he collapsed. While the complainant was lying injured, accused Gursevak Singh, son of Satnam Singh, armed with a Hardeep Singh, son of Gurmej Singh, armed with Raniwala, also attacked the left side of the leg of the complainant. On raising hue and cry, nearby villagers rushed to the fled in their car with their respective weapons. Thereafter, injured were taken to Civil Hospital, Sarhali. Due to severity of injuries on the person of the complainant, he was referred to Civil Hospital, Tarn Taran. The complainant alleged that the motive behind the attack is a prior dispute dated 29.05.2024 regarding a filed complaints before the local dera. Nurturing this grudge, the accused persons conspired to attack the complainant with the intent to take On these set of allegations, instant FIR under investigation ensued. 3. petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question counsel has further iterated that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he raised a According to learned counsel, at the time of alleged occurrence, the petitioner was present near Gurdwara Sahib and, thus, his implication is -43713-2025 Singh (petitioner herein) son of Satnam Singh, alig stating that the complainant should not be escaped. accused Palwinder Singh fired 3/4 shots intention to kill. One bullet struck the left thigh of the complainant reby he collapsed. While the complainant was lying injured, accused Gursevak Singh, son of Satnam Singh, armed with a Hardeep Singh, son of Gurmej Singh, armed with Raniwala, also attacked him. Accused Gursevak the left side of the leg of the complainant. On raising hue and cry, nearby villagers rushed to the scene of occurrence fled in their car with their respective weapons. Thereafter, injured were to Civil Hospital, Sarhali. Due to severity of injuries on the person of the complainant, he was referred to Civil Hospital, Tarn Taran. The complainant alleged that the motive behind the attack is a prior dispute dated 29.05.2024 regarding a sakeemi kh filed complaints before the local dera. Nurturing this grudge, the accused persons conspired to attack the complainant with the intent to take On these set of allegations, instant FIR under nvestigation ensued. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question counsel has further iterated that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he raised a lalkara and no overt act or injury has been attributed to According to learned counsel, at the time of alleged occurrence, the petitioner was present near Gurdwara Sahib and, thus, his implication is 2 Singh (petitioner herein) son of Satnam Singh, alighted and raised a lalkara the complainant should not be escaped. Immediately, thereafter, accused Palwinder Singh fired 3/4 shots on the person of the complainant to kill. One bullet struck the left thigh of the complainant reby he collapsed. While the complainant was lying injured, accused Gursevak Singh, son of Satnam Singh, armed with a datar and accused Hardeep Singh, son of Gurmej Singh, armed with kirpan, both resident of . Accused Gursevak Singh inflicted a blow on the left side of the leg of the complainant. On raising hue and cry, the scene of occurrence whereupon the assailants fled in their car with their respective weapons. Thereafter, injured were to Civil Hospital, Sarhali. Due to severity of injuries on the person of the complainant, he was referred to Civil Hospital, Tarn Taran. The complainant alleged that the motive behind the attack is a prior dispute sakeemi khal, in which both the parties had filed complaints before the local dera. Nurturing this grudge, the accused persons conspired to attack the complainant with the intent to take his life. On these set of allegations, instant FIR under was registered and Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further iterated that the only allegation against the petitioner is and no overt act or injury has been attributed to him According to learned counsel, at the time of alleged occurrence, the petitioner was present near Gurdwara Sahib and, thus, his implication is lalkara Immediately, thereafter, complainant to kill. One bullet struck the left thigh of the complainant reby he collapsed. While the complainant was lying injured, accused and accused , both resident of Singh inflicted a blow on the whereupon the assailants fled in their car with their respective weapons. Thereafter, injured were to Civil Hospital, Sarhali. Due to severity of injuries on the person of the complainant, he was referred to Civil Hospital, Tarn Taran. The complainant alleged that the motive behind the attack is a prior dispute in which both the parties had filed complaints before the local dera. Nurturing this grudge, the accused life. was registered and Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the . Learned counsel has further iterated that the only allegation against the petitioner is him. According to learned counsel, at the time of alleged occurrence, the petitioner was present near Gurdwara Sahib and, thus, his implication is AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.22 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- entirely false. Learned counsel has further point itself records the observation of the police officials that the injuries and the MLR prepared by the doctor render the occurrence doubtful which strengthens the contention of petitioner of false implication. counsel asserts accusation. be effected from the interrogation should not be used as a punit when absolutely necessary for the recovery of material evidence. Furthermore, useful purpose would be served by sending basis of aforesaid submissions, the grant of concession of anticipatory bail is entreated for. 4. anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by the petitione are direct and specific allegations against the petitioner. categorically stated in the FIR tha the petitioner raised a pursuant to which the co complainant. Thus, the active participation of the petitioner in the commission of the offence stands clearly established and there is sufficient material on record against the petitioner. that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is imperative for the purpose of effective and fair investigation case the petitioner is granted the concession of pre -43713-2025 entirely false. Learned counsel has further point itself records the observation of the police officials that the injuries and the MLR prepared by the doctor render the occurrence doubtful which strengthens the contention of petitioner of false implication. counsel asserts that the petitioner has a clean antecedent with no prior accusation. It is next submitted by the learned counsel be effected from the petitioner or at his interrogation should not be used as a punit when absolutely necessary for the recovery of material evidence. Furthermore, the petitioner is ready to join the investigation useful purpose would be served by sending basis of aforesaid submissions, the grant of concession of anticipatory bail is entreated for. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. According to learned State counsel, are direct and specific allegations against the petitioner. categorically stated in the FIR tha the petitioner raised a pursuant to which the co-accused opened fire and caused injuries to the complainant. Thus, the active participation of the petitioner in the commission of the offence stands clearly established and there is sufficient material on record against the petitioner. that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is imperative for the purpose of effective and fair investigation. According to learned State counsel, in case the petitioner is granted the concession of pre 3 entirely false. Learned counsel has further pointed out that even the FIR itself records the observation of the police officials that the injuries and the MLR prepared by the doctor render the occurrence doubtful which strengthens the contention of petitioner of false implication. Learned that the petitioner has a clean antecedent with no prior by the learned counsel that no recovery is to his instance. Moreover, the custodial interrogation should not be used as a punitive measure and is justified only when absolutely necessary for the recovery of material evidence. the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and hence useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars. On the basis of aforesaid submissions, the grant of concession of anticipatory bail is earned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by r is serious in nature. According to learned State counsel, there are direct and specific allegations against the petitioner. Furthermore, it is categorically stated in the FIR tha the petitioner raised a lalkara at the spot, sed opened fire and caused injuries to the complainant. Thus, the active participation of the petitioner in the commission of the offence stands clearly established and there is sufficient material on record against the petitioner. Learned State counsel has iterated that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is imperative for the purpose According to learned State counsel, in case the petitioner is granted the concession of pre-arrest, at this stage, it ed out that even the FIR itself records the observation of the police officials that the injuries and the MLR prepared by the doctor render the occurrence doubtful which Learned that the petitioner has a clean antecedent with no prior that no recovery is to Moreover, the custodial ive measure and is justified only when absolutely necessary for the recovery of material evidence. no On the basis of aforesaid submissions, the grant of concession of anticipatory bail is earned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by there Furthermore, it is at the spot, sed opened fire and caused injuries to the complainant. Thus, the active participation of the petitioner in the commission of the offence stands clearly established and there is sufficient as iterated that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is imperative for the purpose According to learned State counsel, in arrest, at this stage, it AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.22 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- may impe effect the efforts to apprehend the remaining co these submissions, the dismissal of the instant petition is prayed for. 5. the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by raising submission in tandem with the learned State counsel. 6. gone through the available record of the case. 7. have been levelled against the petitioner. prosecution, on accused, allegedly formed an unlawfu weapons and his friend while There are direct and specific allegations against the petitioner of raising a lalkara at the spot and the same cannot be treated as an insignificant role, particularly when the same was immediately followed by gunfire from the co-accused resulting in grievous injuries to the complainant. The subsequent material the video footage and call details prosecution. In addition, reliance is placed by the State on the material collected during investigation. A video clip dated 08.06.2025 shows the petitioner was turning back his Bullet motorcycle outside the house of the complainant. Furthermore, the call records establish that co Hardeep Singh and Gursewak Singh had made WhatsApp and normal calls -43713-2025 may impede the ongoing investigation, obstruct recovery and adversely effect the efforts to apprehend the remaining co these submissions, the dismissal of the instant petition is prayed for. Learned counsel for the complainant has the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by raising submission in tandem with the learned State counsel. I have heard the learned counsel for the gone through the available record of the case. As per the FIR in question, indubitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. prosecution, on the alleged day of occurrence accused, allegedly formed an unlawful assembly and launched a violent and premeditated assault and his friend while they were returning to their village on motorcycle. There are direct and specific allegations against the petitioner of raising a at the spot and the same cannot be treated as an insignificant role, particularly when the same was immediately followed by gunfire from the accused resulting in grievous injuries to the complainant. The subsequent material collecting during the the video footage and call details, prima facie prosecution. In addition, reliance is placed by the State on the material collected during investigation. A video clip dated 08.06.2025 shows the petitioner was turning back his Bullet motorcycle outside the house of the complainant. Furthermore, the call records establish that co Hardeep Singh and Gursewak Singh had made WhatsApp and normal calls 4 de the ongoing investigation, obstruct recovery and adversely effect the efforts to apprehend the remaining co-accused. On the strength of these submissions, the dismissal of the instant petition is prayed for. Learned counsel for the complainant has vociferously opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by raising submission in I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case. As per the FIR in question, indubitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. As per the version put forth by the the alleged day of occurrence, the petitioner, alongwith co l assembly and armed with deadly launched a violent and premeditated assault on the complainant they were returning to their village on motorcycle. There are direct and specific allegations against the petitioner of raising a at the spot and the same cannot be treated as an insignificant role, particularly when the same was immediately followed by gunfire from the accused resulting in grievous injuries to the complainant. The collecting during the course of investigation, including prima facie corroborates the case of the prosecution. In addition, reliance is placed by the State on the material collected during investigation. A video clip dated 08.06.2025 shows that the petitioner was turning back his Bullet motorcycle outside the house of the complainant. Furthermore, the call records establish that co-accused Hardeep Singh and Gursewak Singh had made WhatsApp and normal calls de the ongoing investigation, obstruct recovery and adversely On the strength of vociferously opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by raising submission in and have As per the FIR in question, indubitably, serious allegations As per the version put forth by the co- armed with deadly on the complainant they were returning to their village on motorcycle. There are direct and specific allegations against the petitioner of raising a at the spot and the same cannot be treated as an insignificant role, particularly when the same was immediately followed by gunfire from the accused resulting in grievous injuries to the complainant. The , including corroborates the case of the prosecution. In addition, reliance is placed by the State on the material that the petitioner was turning back his Bullet motorcycle outside the house of accused Hardeep Singh and Gursewak Singh had made WhatsApp and normal calls AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.22 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- to the complainant and issued thre petitioner, therefore, cannot be brushed aside as it formed part of the common intention in furtherance of which the grievous assault was carried out. The of the injuries attributed threatening that the 04 is yet to b interrogation broader conspiracy, if any, behind the occurrence. cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR. It goes without saying that in the instant case, the complainant has categorically stated that the petitio acted in furtherance of their common object the complainant party. 8. grant of anticipatory individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigat wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It is imperative that every person in the Society can expect an atmosphere free from foreboding & fear of any transgression. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that -43713-2025 to the complainant and issued threats to the complainant. petitioner, therefore, cannot be brushed aside as it formed part of the common intention in furtherance of which the grievous assault was carried The petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR injuries attributed during the incident in question threatening, reflecting the severity of the alleged act. that the 04 co-accused are currently in judicial custody yet to be apprehended. The investigating agency has sought the custodial interrogation of the petitioner for verification of facts and to establish the broader conspiracy, if any, behind the occurrence. cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR. It goes without saying that in the instant case, the complainant has categorically stated that the petitioner along with co-accused and as part of an unlawful assembly, acted in furtherance of their common object the complainant party. It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigat wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It is imperative that every person in the Society can expect an atmosphere free from foreboding & fear of any transgression. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. 5 ats to the complainant. The act of the petitioner, therefore, cannot be brushed aside as it formed part of the common intention in furtherance of which the grievous assault was carried specifically named in the FIR, and the nature during the incident in question are serious and life , reflecting the severity of the alleged act. It has come on record accused are currently in judicial custody, while the petitioner investigating agency has sought the custodial for verification of facts and to establish the broader conspiracy, if any, behind the occurrence. No cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR. It goes without saying that in the instant case, the complainant has categorically stated that accused and as part of an unlawful assembly, acted in furtherance of their common object inflicted multiple injuries upon It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It is imperative that every person in the Society can expect an atmosphere free from foreboding & fear of any transgression. At this stage, there is no material on record to case is not made out against the petitioner. The The act of the petitioner, therefore, cannot be brushed aside as it formed part of the common intention in furtherance of which the grievous assault was carried ature serious and life- It has come on record petitioner investigating agency has sought the custodial for verification of facts and to establish the plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR. It goes without saying that in the instant case, the complainant has categorically stated that accused and as part of an unlawful assembly, multiple injuries upon It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to ion as also the deeper and wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It is imperative that every person in the Society can expect an atmosphere free from foreboding & fear of any transgression. At this stage, there is no material on record to The AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.22 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- material which has come on record and preliminary investigation, appear to be established a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] held as under : (SCC p. 18 8.1. attributed to the victims and the investigation not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual case in hand. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. -43713-2025 material which has come on record and preliminary investigation, appear to be established a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6) “6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well-ensconced with a favourable order under case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre arrest bail order during the time he is 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 argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct t a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders. In view of the gravity of the allegations attributed to the petitioner, the serious nature of injuries sustained by the and the necessity of custodial interrogation for a fair and thorough investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual case in hand. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. 6 material which has come on record and preliminary investigation, appear to be established a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. In State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039], the Supreme Court has “6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is oriented than questioning a suspect who is ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the is fraught with the danger of the person being 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 a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.” gravity of the allegations, the specific role nature of injuries sustained by the necessity of custodial interrogation for a fair and thorough this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual matrix of the case in hand. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. material which has come on record and preliminary investigation, appear to be established a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not to the petitioner, as it would v. Anil has “6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is oriented than questioning a suspect who is of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre- arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the is fraught with the danger of the person being degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court hemselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring the specific role nature of injuries sustained by the necessity of custodial interrogation for a fair and thorough this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does matrix of the case in hand. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth. The petition is, thus, AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.22 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 9. of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation. 10. August 22 Ajay -43713-2025 Nothing said hereinabove shall be deem of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. August 22, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 7 Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No ed to be an expression AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.22 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document