CRM-M- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 105 Himanshu State of Haryana Date of decision: Date of Uploading : 07.07.2026 CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL 1. seeking grant of anticipatory/pre 2023 in FIR No.0065 dated 18.04.2026 registered for offences punishable under Sections 110, 115(2), 3(5), 333, 351(3) of BNS, 2023 at Police Station Barauda, District Sonipat. 2. complainant combine machine about 10:00 Koop Singh allegedly arrived and objected to the harvesting of the crop the complainant to his house. Ramesh, his brother forcibly entered -29793-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Himanshu V/s State of Haryana Date of decision: 06.07.2026 Date of Uploading : 07.07.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Vivek Salathia, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG Haryana. Mr. Pawan Kumar Hooda, Advocate for the complainant. ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) Present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 in FIR No.0065 dated 18.04.2026 registered for offences punishable under Sections 110, 115(2), 3(5), 333, 351(3) of BNS, 2023 at Police on Barauda, District Sonipat. As per the allegations, as set complainant namely Praveen stated that on 16.04.2026 he had engaged a machine for harvesting his wheat crop. about 10:00 PM, while he was present in his fields, accused Ramesh son of Koop Singh allegedly arrived and objected to the harvesting of the crop the complainant. A dispute ensued and, thereafter to his house. It has been further alleged t Ramesh, his brother namely Rakesh, and Himanshu entered the house of the complainant 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-29793-2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Vivek Salathia, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG Haryana. Mr. Pawan Kumar Hooda, Advocate for the complainant. en filed on behalf of the petitioner arrest bail under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 in FIR No.0065 dated 18.04.2026 registered for offences punishable under Sections 110, 115(2), 3(5), 333, 351(3) of BNS, 2023 at Police , as set-out in the petition in hand, Praveen stated that on 16.04.2026 he had engaged a for harvesting his wheat crop. As per the complainant, PM, while he was present in his fields, accused Ramesh son of Koop Singh allegedly arrived and objected to the harvesting of the crop thereafter, the complainant returned alleged that shortly thereafter, accused and Himanshu (petitioner herein) of the complainant and pushed him into the en filed on behalf of the petitioner arrest bail under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 in FIR No.0065 dated 18.04.2026 registered for offences punishable under Sections 110, 115(2), 3(5), 333, 351(3) of BNS, 2023 at Police the Praveen stated that on 16.04.2026 he had engaged a As per the complainant, at PM, while he was present in his fields, accused Ramesh son of Koop Singh allegedly arrived and objected to the harvesting of the crop of the complainant returned hat shortly thereafter, accused (petitioner herein) and pushed him into the AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.07 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- courtyard. complainant complainant Himanshu waist and feet with a wooden stick. the complainant with dire consequences before fleeing from the spot. these set of allegations, the FIR in question has been registered and investigation ensued. 3. FIR is a gross abuse of the process of law and has been lodged with fide intention only to harass the petitioner. Learned counsel has further iterated that the wheat crop and is a case of counsel, the petitioner the co-accused also sustained injuries involved in the incident. young student pursuing B.Sc. competitive exam the offence under Section 110 co-accused Ramesh, who allegedly inflicted a blow on the head complainant has emphasized that the injuries on the waist and therefore, the offence under Section 110 Learned counsel has further submitted that there is no need for custodial interrogation of the petitioner as nothing incriminatin -29793-2026 courtyard. Accused Ramesh allegedly inflicted a blow on the head complainant with a spade (kassi); accused complainant with a lathi and also caused injuries on his head whereas Himanshu (petitioner herein) allegedly attacked the complainant on his waist and feet with a wooden stick. Furthermore, all the the complainant with dire consequences before fleeing from the spot. se set of allegations, the FIR in question has been registered and investigation ensued. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the present FIR is a gross abuse of the process of law and has been lodged with intention only to harass the petitioner. Learned counsel has further iterated that the occurrence is a result of a dispute relating to harvesting of wheat crop and is a case of version and cross the petitioner has himself suffered injuries accused also sustained injuries which show involved in the incident. It has been further submitted that the petitioner is a young student pursuing B.Sc. Ist year and is also preparing for competitive exams. It has been further contended that the the offence under Section 110 of the BNS has been specifically attrib accused Ramesh, who allegedly inflicted a blow on the head complainant with a spade (kassi) and is already has emphasized that the present petitioner has merely been attributed simple injuries on the waist and feet of the complainant with a wooden stick and therefore, the offence under Section 110 of Learned counsel has further submitted that there is no need for custodial interrogation of the petitioner as nothing incriminatin 2 Ramesh allegedly inflicted a blow on the head of the accused Rakesh allegedly assaulted and also caused injuries on his head whereas allegedly attacked the complainant on his Furthermore, all the accused threatened the complainant with dire consequences before fleeing from the spot. se set of allegations, the FIR in question has been registered and Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the present FIR is a gross abuse of the process of law and has been lodged with mala intention only to harass the petitioner. Learned counsel has further occurrence is a result of a dispute relating to harvesting of version and cross-version. According to learned himself suffered injuries in the occurrence and which show that the both sides were further submitted that the petitioner is a ear and is also preparing for s. It has been further contended that the injury attracting BNS has been specifically attributed to accused Ramesh, who allegedly inflicted a blow on the head of the already in custody. Learned counsel present petitioner has merely been attributed simple feet of the complainant with a wooden stick and of BNS is not attracted against him. Learned counsel has further submitted that there is no need for custodial interrogation of the petitioner as nothing incriminating remains to be of the the and also caused injuries on his head whereas allegedly attacked the complainant on his accused threatened On se set of allegations, the FIR in question has been registered and Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the present mala intention only to harass the petitioner. Learned counsel has further occurrence is a result of a dispute relating to harvesting of According to learned the occurrence and both sides were further submitted that the petitioner is a the injury attracting uted to of the Learned counsel present petitioner has merely been attributed simple feet of the complainant with a wooden stick and BNS is not attracted against him. Learned counsel has further submitted that there is no need for custodial g remains to be AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.07 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- recovered from him. Moreover, there is no likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or tampering with the prosecution evidence in case he is enlarged on pre submissions, the grant 4. appearing for the complainant, that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. contended that the supported by the material collected during investigation. petitioner was an active participant in the occurrence and acted in concert with the co learned State counsel, the the hands, legs and waist of the complainant with a wooden stick (lathi). has been further contended that the and several material aspects remain to be verified. allegedly used by the present petitioner is yet to be recovered and his custodial interrogation is necessary for effecting recovery and unearthing the complet interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. made for the 5. gone through the available record of the case. 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Kumar C.K. and another, 2022(4) RCR (Criminal) 977, reads as under: -29793-2026 recovered from him. Moreover, there is no likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or tampering with the prosecution evidence in case he is enlarged on pre- submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for. Per contra, learned State counsel appearing for the complainant, have opposed the petition in hand by arguing that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. contended that the allegations against the petitioner are specific and duly supported by the material collected during investigation. petitioner was an active participant in the occurrence and acted in concert with the co-accused in furtherance of their common intention. learned State counsel, the petitioner is alleged to have inflicted injuries on the hands, legs and waist of the complainant with a wooden stick (lathi). has been further contended that the investigation is and several material aspects remain to be verified. allegedly used by the present petitioner is yet to be recovered and his custodial interrogation is necessary for effecting recovery and unearthing the complete facts. Considering the nature of allegations, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. made for the dismissal of the instant petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the gone through the available record of the case. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Kumar C.K. and another, 2022(4) RCR (Criminal) 977, ads as under: 3 recovered from him. Moreover, there is no likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or tampering with the prosecution -arrest bail. On strength of these of anticipatory bail is entreated for. , learned State counsel as also learned counsel opposed the petition in hand by arguing that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. It has been allegations against the petitioner are specific and duly supported by the material collected during investigation. Furthermore, petitioner was an active participant in the occurrence and acted in concert erance of their common intention. According to petitioner is alleged to have inflicted injuries on the hands, legs and waist of the complainant with a wooden stick (lathi). investigation is still at a crucial stage and several material aspects remain to be verified. Moreover, the weapon allegedly used by the present petitioner is yet to be recovered and his custodial interrogation is necessary for effecting recovery and unearthing Considering the nature of allegations, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. Accordingly, a prayer has been instant petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Sumitha Pradeep vs. Arun Kumar C.K. and another, 2022(4) RCR (Criminal) 977, relevant whereof recovered from him. Moreover, there is no likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or tampering with the prosecution arrest bail. On strength of these as also learned counsel opposed the petition in hand by arguing It has been allegations against the petitioner are specific and duly the petitioner was an active participant in the occurrence and acted in concert According to petitioner is alleged to have inflicted injuries on the hands, legs and waist of the complainant with a wooden stick (lathi). It still at a crucial stage he weapon allegedly used by the present petitioner is yet to be recovered and his custodial interrogation is necessary for effecting recovery and unearthing Considering the nature of allegations, the custodial Accordingly, a prayer has been and have It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Sumitha Pradeep vs. Arun relevant whereof AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.07 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 7. have been levelled against the petitioner. The allegations in the present case reflect that a dispute arose between the complainant and the accused regarding altercation in the fields, the complainant returned to his residence. Thereafter, the accused persons, namely Ramesh, Rakesh and the present petitioner, allegedly followed his house -29793-2026 “12. In a case containing such serious allegations, the High Court ought not to have exercised its jurisdiction in granting protection against arrest, as the Investigating Officer deserves free investigation to its logical conclusion. It goes without saying that appearance before the Investigating Officer who, has been prevented from subjecting Respondent No.1 to custodial interrogation, can hardly be fruitful to find out the prima facie substance in the allegations, which are of extreme serious in nature. xxx xxx 16. In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should b ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offen with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline custodial interrogation. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a groun to grant anticipatory bail.” As per the stand of the State have been levelled against the petitioner. The allegations in the present case that a dispute arose between the complainant and the accused regarding harvesting of wheat crop by altercation in the fields, the complainant returned to his residence. Thereafter, the accused persons, namely Ramesh, Rakesh and the present petitioner, allegedly followed the complainant house; dragged him into the courtyard 4 In a case containing such serious allegations, the High Court ought not to have exercised its jurisdiction in granting protection against arrest, as the Investigating Officer deserves freehand to take the conclusion. It goes without saying that appearance before the Investigating Officer who, has been prevented from subjecting Respondent No.1 to custodial interrogation, can hardly be fruitful to find out the prima facie substance in the allegations, which xxx xxx In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should b ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline custodial interrogation. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a groun stand of the State, indubitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. The allegations in the present case that a dispute arose between the complainant and the accused by a combine harvester. After an altercation in the fields, the complainant returned to his residence. Thereafter, the accused persons, namely Ramesh, Rakesh and the present the complainant to his house, trespassed into dragged him into the courtyard & attacked him with a spade In a case containing such serious allegations, the High Court ought not to have exercised its jurisdiction in granting protection against hand to take the conclusion. It goes without saying that appearance before the Investigating Officer who, has been prevented from subjecting Respondent No.1 to custodial interrogation, can hardly be fruitful to find out the prima facie substance in the allegations, which In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common required to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the ce should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline custodial interrogation. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground , indubitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. The allegations in the present case that a dispute arose between the complainant and the accused fter an altercation in the fields, the complainant returned to his residence. Thereafter, the accused persons, namely Ramesh, Rakesh and the present use, trespassed into spade AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.07 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- (kassi) and wooden sticks. multiple injuries and the accused persons allegedly extended threats fleeing from the sp attack by attributed to the present petitioner cannot be said to be insignificant has actively participated in the occurrence and complainant with a wooden stick. The fact that the grievous head injury been attributed to co involvement have acted together in the commission of the offence. petitioner him is a matter which would require appreciation of evidence during investigation and trial. Court is that the recovered a fair and effective investigation. anticipatory bail, examination of the evidence or record a conclusive finding regarding the guilt or innocence of the accused. However, the nature of allegations, the role attributed to the accused and the materia investigation are of anticipatory bail. 8. can be inferred that the petitioner has been falsely impl question. grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding -29793-2026 and wooden sticks. In the occurrence the injuries and the accused persons allegedly extended threats fleeing from the spot. The allegations prima facie attack by the accused acting in furtherance of a common intention. attributed to the present petitioner cannot be said to be insignificant actively participated in the occurrence and complainant with a wooden stick. The fact that the grievous head injury been attributed to co-accused Ramesh does not involvement of the petitioner when the allegations indicate that all accused acted together in the commission of the offence. petitioner regarding version/cross-version and injuries allegedly suffered by him is a matter which would require appreciation of evidence during investigation and trial. The stand of the inv Court is that the weapon allegedly used by the petitioner is yet to be recovered for which custodial interrogation a fair and effective investigation. At this stage of consideration of patory bail, this Court is not required to conduct a detailed examination of the evidence or record a conclusive finding regarding the guilt or innocence of the accused. However, the nature of allegations, the role attributed to the accused and the materia investigation are the relevant factors while considering the prayer for anticipatory bail. No plausible cause has been shown at this stage from which it can be inferred that the petitioner has been falsely impl . It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding 5 In the occurrence the complainant sustained injuries and the accused persons allegedly extended threats while prima facie disclose a coordinated accused acting in furtherance of a common intention. The role attributed to the present petitioner cannot be said to be insignificant as he actively participated in the occurrence and inflicted injuries upon the complainant with a wooden stick. The fact that the grievous head injury ha accused Ramesh does not, by itself, dilute the when the allegations indicate that all accused acted together in the commission of the offence. The plea of the version and injuries allegedly suffered by him is a matter which would require appreciation of evidence during The stand of the investigating agency before this weapon allegedly used by the petitioner is yet to be custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for At this stage of consideration of Court is not required to conduct a detailed examination of the evidence or record a conclusive finding regarding the guilt or innocence of the accused. However, the nature of allegations, the role attributed to the accused and the material collected during the course of relevant factors while considering the prayer for grant No plausible cause has been shown at this stage from which it can be inferred that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding complainant sustained while disclose a coordinated The role as he inflicted injuries upon the has dilute the when the allegations indicate that all accused of the version and injuries allegedly suffered by him is a matter which would require appreciation of evidence during estigating agency before this weapon allegedly used by the petitioner is yet to be is necessary for At this stage of consideration of Court is not required to conduct a detailed examination of the evidence or record a conclusive finding regarding the guilt or innocence of the accused. However, the nature of allegations, the the course of grant No plausible cause has been shown at this stage from which it into the FIR in It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.07 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 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. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold the petitioner. investigation, appear Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to t would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039 Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6) 9. the petitioner in the occurrence, the stage of investigation and the material collected by the investigating agency indicating his presence at the spot -29793-2026 individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to n 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. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima facie the petitioner. The material which has come on record and investigation, appears to establish a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to t would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039 Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6) “6. We find force in the submission of CBI qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well-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 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 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.” In view of the nature of the the petitioner in the occurrence, the stage of investigation and the material collected by the investigating agency indicating his presence at the spot 6 individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to n 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. At this stage, there is prima facie case is not made out against The material which has come on record and the preliminary to establish a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6) “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 dous 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 custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods 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 ” the allegations, the role attributed to the petitioner in the occurrence, the stage of investigation and the material collected by the investigating agency indicating his presence at the spot, this individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to n 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. At this stage, there is case is not made out against preliminary to establish a reasonable basis for the accusations. he petitioner, as it State v. , the Hon'ble 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 dous 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 e 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 degree methods 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 the role attributed to the petitioner in the occurrence, the stage of investigation and the material , this AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.07 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. 10. (i) (ii) of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation. (iii) July 06, 202 Ajay -29793-2026 Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus: The instant petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. 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. 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 7 Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus: petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. 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 Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.07 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document