Vinod Kumar Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home U.P. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 17544 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:46188
 
Court No. - 14
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13850 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Yadav
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Asim Kumar Singh,Chandra Bhushan Pandey
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sheo Prakash Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

Heard Shri Chandra Bhushan Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Sheo Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the informant/complainant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant - Vinod Kumar Yadav for grant of bail, in Case Crime No.406 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 188, 307, 302, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Pratapgarh, during trial.

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.

It is further submitted that in the F.I.R., which has been lodged by the informant Laxman Prasad Pandey (injured) against 10 named accused persons including applicant and 2-3 other unknown persons and no specific role has been assigned to the instant applicant and the F.I.R. would only suggest that the instant applicant was only present at the spot, when the incident had allegedly taken place and specific role of firing with specific firearms have been assigned to other co-accused persons namely Sarvesh Tiwari @ Saheb Tiwari, Anand Tiwary and Anjani Shukla .

It is further submitted that neither in the F.I.R. nor in the statement of the prosecution witnesses including informant Laxman Prasad Pandey and Surendra Tiwari @ Shubhendra Mani Tiwari, no specific firearm has been assigned to the instant applicant, however, general role of firing has been assigned to all the accused persons and even in the statement of the prosecution witnesses, who have been testified so far before the trial court, general role of firing with firearms have been assigned to all the accused persons.

It is vehemently submitted that co-accused persons namely Ravi Singh @ Amit Pratap Singh, Ashish Kumar Pal, Chandrabhal Tripathi, Anand Tiwari and Ravi Mishra, to whom also the role of firing has been assigned by the informant and prosecution witnesses, have been granted bail by the Coordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 26.09.2022, 19.12.2022, 28.04.2023, 25.04.2023 and 18.05.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.5167 of 2022, 14106 of 2022, 11617 of 2022, 4795 of 2023 and 6057 of 2023, respectively and the role of the instant applicant is identical to them and thus on the basis of principle of parity the instant applicant is also entitled to be released on bail.

It is next submitted that the applicant is in jail in this case since 16.08.2022 without any criminal history and though it is directed to hold the trial on day to day basis but the same has still not completed and in all likelihood the trial is not going to conclude in near future and as majority of the prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial court, the applicant would not be in a position to influence any of the prosecution witnesses and there is no apprehension either that after being released on bail he may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State on the other hand submits that the offence has been committed in a calculated manner and in pursuance of the conspiracy and premeditated plan of all the accused persons one innocent person has been done to death and two other have been injured in discriminating firing made by the applicant and other co-accused persons and in the F.I.R. as well as in the statement of the prosecution witnesses including those, whose statement have been recorded before the trial court, the role of firing has also been assigned to the instant applicant. Firearm injuries have also been found on the person of the deceased and thus having regard to the nature of evidence available, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

Shri Sheo Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the informant/complainant submits that the role of the applicant is specific in the F.I.R. as well as in the statement of the witnesses recorded by the investigating officer as well as before the trial court and he has also opened gunshot fire towards the deceased and the injured persons, which has resulted in the death of one person and injuries to the two other persons and the manner, in which the incident has been caused, had created an environment of fear and terror and the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that no specific role has been assigned to the instant applicant is patently false.

It is further submitted that the bail applications of the co-accused Sarvesh Tiwari @ Saheb Tiwari , Aditya Singh @ Major and the bail applications of another co-accused person namely Ambrish Mishra has been rejected by Coordinate Benches of this Court and against the rejection of bail application of accused Ambrish Mishra , he had approached Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, his Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Apex Court on 12.12.2022 passed in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No(s)33002 of 2022.

It is also submitted that first bail application of the co-accused Anand Tiwari has been rejected by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 28.09.2022 and second bail application has been allowed only on the basis of his medical condition and not on merits and bail application of co-accused Ravi Singh @ Amit Pratap Singh was granted by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on the basis of prima facie establishment of plea of alibi after taking into consideration the CCTV footage of the H.D.F.C. Bank and the statement of the Manager of the said Bank, wherein it is stated that the co-accused Aditya Singh @ Major was present at the relevant point of time in the Bank while another co-accused persons namely Chandrabhal Tripathi and Ashish Kumar Pal were granted bail as they were not named in the F.I.R. and thus there is no parity with those co-accused, who have been granted bail by Coordinate Benches of this Court.

It is also submitted that bail application of co-accused Ravi Mishra, whose parity is also being claimed by the instant applicant, has been allowed only on the ground that co-accused Anand Tiwari and Ashish Kumar Pal has been granted concession of bail, without assigning any reason for grant of bail and without noticing that the role of accused Ravi Mishra and co-accused Anand Tiwari and Ashish Kumar Pal is not similar and in utter ignorance that there is no parity of co-accused Ravi Mishra with co-accused Anand Tiwari or Ashish Kumar Pal as bail to co-accused Anand Tiwari was granted on the basis of his medical condition without discussing any merits and the bail to Ashish Kumar Pal was granted as he was not named in the F.I.R. and his name has surfaced subsequently thus the instant applicant cannot claim parity with the co-accused Ravi Mishra.

Lastly it is submitted that earlier Coordinate Benches of this Court had granted facility of bail to the co-accused Anjani Kumar Shukla, Rahul @ Monu Tiwari, Raj Kumar Maurya, however, on being challenged before Hon'ble Supreme Court the facility of bail granted by Coordinate Benches to the above accused persons was cancelled and the said order has been reported in AIR 2022 SC 510; Laxman Prasad Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh. Thus the applicant, who is having direct role of firing towards the deceased and the injured persons is not entitled to be released on bail.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that in the F.I.R. as well as in the statement of the prosecution witnesses including injured witnesses the role of firing has been assigned to all the accused persons named in the F.I.R., including instant applicant, however, in the F.I.R. as well as in the statement of the prosecution witnesses firing with specific weapons have been assigned to certain specific accused persons. The prosecution witnesses, who have been examined before the trial court, have also taken the name of the instant applicant as the person, who had opened gunshot fire on the deceased and injured persons, in the incident. Postmortem report of the deceased would sufficiently demonstrate that he had sustained firearm injuries and it is on the basis of these injuries he had died. Thus the role of the instant applicant in the incident of opening gunshot fire is evident in the F.I.R. as well as in the statement of the prosecution witnesses recorded by the investigating officer as well as before the trial court and is prima facie corroborated by the medical evidence.

Coming to the point of parity of the instant applicant with other accused persons who have been granted bail by coordinate benches of this Court, which has been raised before this Court with considerable force by learned counsel for the applicant it is transpired that the instant applicant is claiming parity with co-accused Ravi Singh, Ravi Mishra, Chandrabhal Tripathi, Ashish Kumar Pal and Anand Tiwari, who have been granted bail by Coordinate Benches of this Court. This Court is deliberately avoiding the discussion pertaining to the co-accused persons, whose bail applications have been rejected by coordinate Benches of this Court and such order has also been approved by Hon'ble Supreme Court as there may not be any parity so far as rejection of the bail applications is concerned. Perusal of bail orders pertaining to Co-accused persons with whom parity has been claimed would reveal that Co-accused Ravi Singh @ Amit Pratap Singh has been granted bail as his plea of alibi was prima facie substantiated by the CCTV footage and the statement of the Bank Manager, where he was allegedly found at the time of incident. The bail application of co-accused Ashish Kumar Pal and Chandrabhal Tripathi was granted as they were not named in the F.I.R. and thus their role was distinguishable from the role of instant applicant. Co-accused Anand Tiwari has been granted bail by Coordinate Bench only on account of his medical condition. So far as the bail of co-accused Ravi Mishra is concerned the same has been granted only on the basis that co-accused Anand Tiwari and Ashish Kumar Pal have been granted bail, without discussing the merits of the case, however, as stated earlier co-accused Anand Tiwari was granted bail only on account of his medical condition and Ashish Kumar Pal was not named in the F.I.R.

In Atulbhai Vithalbhai Bhanderi Vs. State of Gujarat; MANU/SC/0530/2023, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:,

"9....................When we speak of discretion, we have in mind "judicial discretion" as explained in Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor; MANU/SC/0089/1977 : (1978) 1 SCC 240:

3.What, then, is "judicial discretion" in this bail context? In the elegant words of Benjamin Cardozo [The Nature of the Judicial Process Yal University Press (1921)]:

The Judge, even when he is free, is still not wholly free. He is not to innovate at pleasure. He is not a knight-errant roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty or of goodness. He is to draw his inspiration from consecrated principles. He is not to yield to spasmodic sentiment, to vague and unregulated benevolence. He is to exercise a discretion informed by tradition, methodized by analogy, disciplined by system, and subordinated to "the primordial necessity of order in the social life". Wide enough in all conscience is the field of discretion that remains.

Even so it is useful to notice the tart terms of Lord Camden that [1 Bovu, Law Dict., Rawles' III Revision p. 885 quoted in Judicial Discretion National College of the State Judiciary, Rano, Nevada p.14] "the discretion of a Judge is the law of tyrants: it is always unknown, it is different in different men; it is casual, and depends upon constitution, temper and passion. In the best, it is oftentimes caprice; in the worst, it is every vice, folly and passion to which human nature is liable.

4. Some jurists have regarded the term "judicial discretion" as a misnomer. Nevertheless, the vesting of discretion is the unspoken but inescapable, silent command of our judicial system, and those who exercise it will remember that discretion, when applied to a Court of Justice, means sound discretion guided by law. It must be governed by rule, not by humour; it must not be arbitrary, vague and fanciful, but legal and regular.

An appeal to a Judge's discretion is an appeal to his judicial conscience. The discretion must be exercised, not in opposition to, but in accordance with, established principles of law. [Judicial discretion, (ibid) p. 33](emphasis supplied)

10. The fact, that out of the twelve charge-sheeted Accused, six co-Accused have not been granted bail, five have availed the benefit of default bail and only one is on regular bail, have also persuaded this Court not to interfere. We have also considered the allegations levelled and perused carefully the statements of the witnesses shown to the Court. In Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote; MANU/SC/0182/1980 : (1980) 2 SCC 559, this Court opined:

3... Detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits should be avoided while passing orders on bail applications. No party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. To be satisfied about a prima facie case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.(emphasis supplied)

11. In Vilas Pandurang Pawar v. State of Maharashtra; MANU/SC/0732/2012: (2012) 8 SCC 795, this Court observed "...Moreover, while considering the application for bail, scope for appreciation of evidence and other material on record is limited. The court is not expected to indulge in critical analysis of the evidence on record...". We are in respectful agreement with the law exposited in these cases. We consciously refrain from detailing our views on the merits of the matter.

12. Insofar as parity is concerned, we need only reproduce the apt observations from Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli), MANU/SC/0298/2021 : (2021) 6 SCC 230, of which we take note:

26.... Parity while granting bail must focus upon the role of the Accused. Merely observing that another Accused who was granted bail was armed with a similar weapon is not sufficient to determine whether a case for the grant of bail on the basis of parity has been established. In deciding the aspect of parity, the role attached to the Accused, their position in relation to the incident and to the victims is of utmost importance. The High Court has proceeded on the basis of parity on a simplistic assessment as noted above, which again cannot pass muster under the law. (emphasis supplied)"

In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and another; (2004)7 SCC 528, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly, where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind.

A Division Bench of this Court in Chander alias Chandra Vs. State of U.P., 1998 Cr.L.J., 2378, MANU/UP/0823/1997 on the question of parity has held as under:-

"16. In Union of India v. M.L. Capoor, MANU/SC/0405/1973 : AIR 1974 SC 87 : 1974 Lab 1C 338 it was observed as follows in para 28 of the reports:

...Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject-matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. They should reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached. Only in this way can opinions or decisions recorded be shown to be manifestly just and reasonable.

In the context of bail application reasons do not mean a detail discussion of the evidence or a finding being recorded on every point. Even if the contention which is accepted for granting bail is noticed it will amount to reasons as they will disclose how the mind was applied to the subject matter for arriving at a decision to grant bail. If factors which weighed with the Court in granting bail are clearly indicated even by noticing the submission of the accused it will be enough as the same would indicate the ground on which the bail was granted.

17. There are many advantages of giving reasons as indicated earlier. Reasons promote thought by the decision making authority and compel him to cover the relevant points and eschew irrelevancies and assures careful and proper consideration of the matter. As observed by the Apex Court, giving of reasons acts as an effective restraint on the abuse of power and a deterrent against possible arbitrary action. Normally a speaking order will be a reasonable one and at worst at least a plausible one. If an accused is able to procure bail on the basis of wrong or incorrect documents the error committed in granting bail can be corrected as the complainant or the State can always apply for cancellation of bail. If a bail order is obtained on the basis of incorrect documents and the same does not contain reasons it will not be possible to detect the mischief played and no applications for cancellation of bail can be moved, thus enabling the accused to continue to enjoy the advantages of the fraud committed by him. The argument that a bail order containing reasons may prejudice the trial does not impress us. It is well settled that orders passed on interim applications even by superior Court have no bearing on the main case. In the State of U. P., a civil Judge (Senior Division) has jurisdiction to try suits of unlimited valuation and against the orders passed by him on interlocutory applications like grant of injunction or appointment of a receiver, appeals are filed in the High Court which are disposed of by detailed and lengthy judgments. But it is never contended that while disposing of the appeals, the High Court should not give detail judgments as it may prejudice the final decision of the suit. A Sessions Judge is very senior and experienced judicial officer and he is expected to know this elementary principle.

18. The role assigned to an accused, the weapon with which he was armed and the nature of the injuries inflicted to the victim by themselves are often not sufficient to find out whether the case of the applicant is similar to a co-accused who has been granted bail. The Court may take into consideration a variety of factors to grant bail to an accused like a plea of alibi which may be peculiar to him, his physical incapacity to take part in the crime, his age, health or any other humanitarian factor which may not necessarily be associated with him but may be connected with his family members. The accused can produce material which may cast doubt on his participation in the crime even though the prosecution evidence may implicate him equally with some other accused and the Court placing reliance on such material extend him the benefit of bail. It is reasons alone which can show which factor weighed with the Court in granting bail. What we want to emphasis is best illustrated by the case of hand. The applicant claims bail on the ground of parity with the order dated 21-8-96 which Shanker co-accused was granted bail by S. N. Tewari, J. in a Second bail application. The first bail application of Shanker was rejected by V. N. Mehrotra, J. on 19-12-94. He filed a second bail application on 26-2-96 and subsequently a supplementary affidavit was filed which was sworn on 4-7-96. In this supplementary affidavit copies of affidavits filed by Daya Shanker (father of the deceased and the complainant) and Vijay (brother of the deceased) filed by them before third Addl. Sessions Judge, Meerut were annexed. In these affidavits it is stated that they had not seen Shanker assaulting the deceased and his name had been wrongly mentioned in the F.I.R. on account of inadvertence. It is further stated in the affidavits that the applicant-Chander and seven other persons who had been named were the real assailants and they had assaulted the deceased. If the father and the brother of the deceased give an affidavit that a particular accused was not present, it is certainly an important point and a Court may grant bail to him on that ground. The order dated 21 -8-96 does not give any reasons but it does appear that Shanker was granted bail taking into consideration the affidavits filed by the father and the brother of the deceased who had clearly exonerated him. From the record, it appears to be the only new ground which had come into existence after the rejection of the first bail application. If the applicant-Chander is granted bail only on the ground of parity with Shanker-accused, it will be clearly illegal as the factors which are likely to have weighed with the Court while granting bail to Shanker are not present in his case. On the contrary, both the father and the brother of the deceased have made the applicant as a real accused in the affidavits filed by them. It is, therefore, clear that failure of justice may be occasioned if bail is granted to an accused on the basis of parity with another co-accused whose bail order does not contain any reason.

19. The next question which requires consideration is whether bail must necessarily be granted on the ground of parity if the order granting bail to an accused contained reasons. The principles on which bail can be granted have been laid down in a catena of decisions by the Apex Court. In Gurcharan Singh v. State; MANU/SC/0420/1978 it was held as follows in para 24 of the reports :

...The overriding considerations in granting bail to which we adverted to earlier and which are common both in the case of Section 437(1) and Section 439(1), Cr.P.C. of the new Code are the nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed; the position and the status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses; the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; are repeating the offence; of jeopardising his own life being faced with a grim prospect of possible conviction in the case of tempering with witnesses; the history of the case as well as of its investigation and other relevant grounds which, in view of so many variable factors, cannot be exhaustively set out.

In Babu Singh v. State of U.P.; MANU/SC/0059/1978: AIR 1978 SC 527 : 1978 Cri LJ 651 it was held as follows in para 16 of the reports :

Thus the legal principle and practice validate the Court considering the likelihood of the applicant interfering with witnesses for the prosecution or otherwise polluting the process of justice. It is not only traditional but rational, in this context, to enquire into the antecedents of a man who is applying for bail to find whether he has a bad record particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to commit serious offences while on bail. In regard to habituals it is part of the criminological history that a thoughtless bail order has enabled bailey to exploit the opportunity to inflict further crimes on the members of the society. Bail discretion, on the basis of evidence about the criminal record of a defendant is, therefore, not an exercise in irrelevance.

The grant of bail is no doubt discretionary but as said by Lord Mansfield in Tinglay v. Dolbev 14 NW 146 discretion when applied to a Court of justice, means sound discretion guided by law. It must be governed by rule, not by humours it must not be arbitrary, vague and fanciful, but legal and regular. Therefore if bail has been granted in flagrant violation of well settled principles, the order granting bail would not be in accordance with law. Such an order can never form the basis for a claim founded on parity. In this connection it will be useful to notice the observation made by the Apex Court where the claim was made on the ground that a similar order had been passed by a Statutory authority in favour of another person. In Chandigarh Administration v. Jagjit Singh MANU/SC/0136/1995: AIR 1995 SC 705, it was held as follows in para 8 of the reports;

...If the order in favour of the other person is found to be contrary to law or not warranted in the facts and circumstances of his case, it is obvious that such illegal and unwarranted order cannot be made the basis of issuing a writ compelling the respondent- authority to repeat the illegality or to pass another unwarranted order.

...The illegal/unwarranted action must be corrected, if it can be done according to law indeed, wherever it is possible, the Court should direct the appropriate authority to correct such wrong orders in accordance with law-but even if it cannot be corrected, it is difficult to see how it can be made a basis for its repetition.

...Giving effect to such pleas would be prejudicial to the interests of law and will do incalculable mischief to public interest. It will be a negation of law and the rule of law.

Again in Secretary Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulatmal Jain MANU/SC/1002/1997: 1997 (1) SCC 35 it was observed as follows in para 24 of the reports :

Article 14 proceeds on the premises that a citizen had legal and valid right enforceable at law and persons having similar right and persons similarly circumstanced, cannot be denied of the benefit thereof. Such persons cannot be discriminated to deny the same benefit. The rational relationship and legal back up are the foundations to invoke the doctrine of equality in case of persons similarly situated. If some persons derived benefit by illegality and had escaped from the clutches of law, similar persons cannot plead nor the Court can countenance that benefit had from infraction of law and must be allowed to be retained. Can one illegality be compounded by permitting similar illegal or illegitimate or ultra vires acts? Answer is obviously No.

The grant of bail is not a mechanical act and principle of consistency cannot be extended to repeating a wrong order. If the order granting bail to an identically placed co-accused has been passed in flagrant violation of well settled principle it will be open to the Judge to reject the bail application of the applicant before him as no Judge is obliged to pass orders against his conscience merely to maintain consistency.

20. Coming to the second question as to what should be done by a Judge when he is confronted with an order of bail which has been passed in flagrant violation of well settled principles, we are of the opinion that he has no authority to cancel the same as one Judge of the High Court cannot sit in appeal over the orders passed by another Judge. If he considers it in the interest of justice, he may, after expressing his views, refer the matter to the same Judge who had granted bail for appropriate action. However, it appear that the bail order has been passed on the basis of wrong or incorrect documents or wrong facts he may initiate action for cancellation of bail.

21. Our answers to the questions referred are as follows :

1. If the order granting bail to an accused is not supported by reasons, the same cannot form the basis for granting bail to a co-accused on the ground of parity.

2. A judge is not bound to grant bail to an accused on the ground of parity even where the order granting bail to an identically placed co-accused contains reasons, if the same has been passed in flagrant violation of well settled principle and ignores to take into consideration the relevant factors essential for granting bail.-

3. A Judge hearing bail application of one accused cannot cancel the bail granted to a co-accused by another Judge on the ground that the same had been granted in flagrant violation of well settled principles. If he considers it necessary in the interest of justice, he may, after expressing his views, refer the matter to the Judge who had granted bail, for appropriate orders.

4. If it appears that a bail order has been passed in favour of an accused on the basis of wrong or incorrect documents it is open to any Judge to initiate action for cancellation of bail."

Thus, having regard to the all facts and circumstances of this case and the legal position stated above, in the considered opinion of this Court, the facility of bail to the instant applicant may not be extended only on the basis that concession of bail has been granted to one of the co-accused person. Applicant cannot take any advantage of the bail order pertaining to co-accused Ravi Mishra as he has been granted bail not on merits of the case but only on account of alleged parity, due to the fact that two co-accused persons Anand Tiwari and Ashish Kumar Pal have earlier been granted bail, while the case of the co-accused Anand Tiwari and Ashish Kumar Pal was different and distinguishable from accused Ravi Mishra. Thus in the considered opinion of this Court the applicant could not claim parity with the co-accused Ravi Mishra also.

Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the trial before the trial court is proceeding on day to day basis and statements of majority of the prosecution witnesses have been recorded and release of the applicant at this crucial stage of the trial may be detrimental for the fair trial and also the fact that the role of the applicant is not at par with those, who have been granted bail and for reasons recorded herein-before the applicant could not be treated at par with co-accused Ravi Mishra, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail. Thus the bail application moved on behalf of applicant - Vinod Kumar Yadav is hereby rejected.

The trial court is however directed to expedite the trial without granting unnecessary adjournments to either side.

Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of this Court on the merits of the case.

Office is directed to immediately send a copy of the instant order to the trial court concerned for compliance.

The case diary of the case be immediately returned to learned A.G.A.

Order Date :- 17.07.2023

Anupam S/-